How the Pyramids were actually built

This is a fascinating talk by Ken Wheeler about his theory of how the Pyramids were actually built. He asserts that the outer casing stones were actually the first thing to go up and that they functioned as a slip-form for geo-polymer (i.e. concrete) that was transported upwards via sleds on a series of bench forms and wooden rollers. He posits that through this method the Pyramids could have been built very quickly and without needing a lot of man power. A micro-gravemetric study in 1986 discovererd a rising intenal spiral inside the great Pyramid that backs up Ken's theory.

One day, I'll move stone with my mind.

If they were built by egyptions, why didn’t they record how they did it to glorify pharoh for all eternity? This is the little detail that always hangs these theories up for me and sways me to believe the pyramids are way older, made by someone else, and were for a purpose not understood.

a reply to: Brotherman

It's totally possible that they were built by someone else and at an earlier time. The video is realating to the construction method.

The officials of the current belief of how they were built will not let anyone examine some evidence. Why is this? They are hiding something. They ether have no idea how the pyramids were made or they know and it is not how they are saying.

I can believe this system of building described in the video is possible but not probable because of political reasons.

a reply to: NeuronDivide

This is a fascinating talk by Ken Wheeler about his theory of how the Pyramids were actually built.

Your sentence is non-nonsensical. The word 'theory' and the word 'actually' are not compatible in this sentence.

Same problem with your title.

This is in fact just Ken Wheeler's theory.

It can go in the box with all of the other theories that have been espoused over time.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Thanks for the grammatical correction. Did you watch the video? What do you think of his theory?

a reply to: NeuronDivide

I tried but he is so slowwww.

Lines like "I can't remember his name but he proved that..." do not instill a sense of factuality.

Like so many vids these days, they want you to believe!

Just another money making vid.

P

a reply to: NeuronDivide

I think his theory is entirely plausible. Many people however don't want any idea that is normal and practical. It has to be mysterious and forever unsolvable.
It would be good if a little 'invasive' investigation was allowed to explore the space above the grand gallery and that niche outside the pyramid.
It might also be an idea that the authorities welcome that mystery as it drives tourism.

So how do you explain all of the Limestone that was quarried?

Do you think that after they quarried it, they powdered it?

How come the fossils in the Limestone did not get powdered?

Next theory ...

originally posted by: charlyv
So how do you explain all of the Limestone that was quarried?

Do you think that after they quarried it, they powdered it?

How come the fossils in the Limestone did not get powdered?

Next theory ...

Powdering stone is easy, and for the fossils, there are a couple of possible explanations, 1- the loose fossils were collected from the sand and added as a filler or for a ritualistic purpose, finding them is easy, if you have ever been in Marocco for example, children find these in very large amounts and sell them.

2-like in modern days, rocks are sometimes added to concrete to add volume, same thing might be happening here, chunks of fossil containing rocks might have been added for the same reason to the geopolymer slurry. it is not that long ago when in addition to rocks, animal bones were added to concrete and mortar for added stability, or as a filler, or for good luck, hence the saying that a "house has good bones".

Ken's theory is that the outer casing of quarried limestone is a slipform for an inner core of geopolymer. The limestone was put up first, setting the correct orientation of the structure from the beginning.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
The officials of the current belief of how they were built will not let anyone examine some evidence. Why is this?

Because your claim is false.

Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: charlyv
So how do you explain all of the Limestone that was quarried?

Do you think that after they quarried it, they powdered it?

How come the fossils in the Limestone did not get powdered?

Next theory ...

Powdering stone is easy, and for the fossils, there are a couple of possible explanations, 1- the loose fossils were collected from the sand and added as a filler or for a ritualistic purpose, finding them is easy, if you have ever been in Marocco for example, children find these in very large amounts and sell them.

2-like in modern days, rocks are sometimes added to concrete to add volume, same thing might be happening here, chunks of fossil containing rocks might have been added for the same reason to the geopolymer slurry. it is not that long ago when in addition to rocks, animal bones were added to concrete and mortar for added stability, or as a filler, or for good luck, hence the saying that a "house has good bones".

The entire theory is breathtakingly idiotic.
These stones were obviously not cast.

They were obviously quarried in the shapes that were used.

As was already said - next theory.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

We are not going through the same debate once again, we agreed to disagree.

Have a merry Christmas!

a reply to: NeuronDivide

The theory is not new.
Nobody alive knows how they were built, that’s not likely to change.
That was painful to watch.
Slooooowwwwwww.
That red spiral reminds me of something, but what?

Sigh……







.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
The officials of the current belief of how they were built will not let anyone examine some evidence. Why is this?

Because your claim is false.

Harte

Does it matter if the theory is true or false if the evidence is not allowed to be looked into? If you are correct, why not at least let some others look into this. It would settle the discussion but that is not allowed.

I think the powers that be know the pyramids are not what they say they are, built when they said they were and by who they said did it. As they hold all the power, they cannot be wrong.

a reply to: NeuronDivide

Videos of Mich man moving blocks BY HIMSELF.

Proved it.

a reply to: Harte

You obviously didn't watch the video at all. He never said the outer stones are cast. They went up first and were used as a slipform for the inner core of geopolymer. For you to say the entire theory is "breathtakingly idiotic" when you completely missed one of his main points of the construction method is hilarious.

originally posted by: Brotherman
If they were built by egyptions, why didn’t they record how they did it to glorify pharoh for all eternity? This is the little detail that always hangs these theories up for me and sways me to believe the pyramids are way older, made by someone else, and were for a purpose not understood.

If that is important to you - that someone recorded it - why are you not unhappy with the folks you think made it - and didn't record it?