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.
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Byrd
Ok. Not that regular. But, still cube like.
How large would slabs have to have been in order to cover a size as large as the base?
cutting and transporting slabs would be far harder than smaller cube like blocks.
originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: blackcrowe
I' ll make a long story short:
A question we should ask ourselves: The greatest geniuses of our time came up with different scenarios for how the pyramids were built, but not one of them withstood reality tests. How can this be possible? And that more than 40 years after astronauts walked on the moon.
www.evawaseerst.be...
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Raggedyman
Of course the GP is the pinnacle of all pyramids.
But, the shape designs itself. There's no other shape it could have been. For such a large base area.
A flat roof design would maybe be even more impressive.
originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: forthelove
Easier than four walls and a roof. That's the point i'm trying to make.
Not made to represent the Ben Ben. Or , so the Pharaoh could climb to the sky. Or, to represent the suns rays.
But because it was easier than a four walls and roof construction.
originally posted by: blackcrowe
The link explains why Egyptians used the pyramid shape.
www.ancientegypt.co.uk...
It's a bit weak.
How many pyramids around the world don't include Pharaoh's?
As for not being able to make one today, even with our technology. They never required advance technology. It was basic tools, lots of manpower and an understanding of leverage and fulcrums etc.
I don't see the magic.