The "Atlantean" Pyramid Cover-Up Exposed

a reply to: Harte

A compelling but hardly open and shut case.
From this passage of that web page you have linked were the author of that does not take an argumentative stance but does disagree with the author of a book which considers much of the temple to be Older than Seti the first -

*"In The Traveler's Key to Ancient Egypt, John Anthony West wrote, "The curious and unique L shape of the main temple could well be explained as a result of initial groundwork in Seti's time uncovering the hitherto buried older temple, necessitating a change of plan." (p. 391) The problem with this scenario is that the location of the Osireion is fully integrated into the plan of the temple complex as a whole (see plan below). The axis of the Osireion is north-northeast, matching exactly the axis of the temple complex. Such uniformity could hardly be accidental. It becomes clear, then, that the site is comprised of a mortuary temple in front of the tomb (or in this case, cenotaph, dedicated to Osiris) in the classical arrangement."*

- it become's clear that the author of that page is pushing his own opinion, the fact that Seti's cartouche was found in some broken stone joint's does not therefore necessitate that Seti actually built it but he did incorporate it despite the opinion of the author of that page and yourself, those two partial or complete cartouche may also have come from later work to fix up the older site.
(also there is no problem at all with the integration of the site, if they had discovered the older complex if anything it would have sped up there building project and given them corner stone to build from and so the site is so aligned after the fact and in fact a misalignment would have been substandard even to lesser builders hence that point is null and void).

The Site may actually have had significance prior to Seti the first reign and if it was for example and it is also of Note that Seti named after Set the arch enemy of Osiris would have happily therefore re purposed an Osirion shrine and dedicated it to his own name sake god Set (if he did indeed dedicate it to Osiris then he was going against his name sake and patron god was he not, not only king's but priests were known to alter things in the past and of course the site could have been returned to the Osiris cult after his time with little or no fanfare while retaining it's royal patronage to the deceased pharaoh), hubris has no bound's not only among ATS commentators but also ancient Egyptian king's (though admittedly Seti was one of Egypt's GREAT king's) or so it seem's.

Also Harte you will have to forgive me if I find it highly suspicious that these Cartouche were found inside the joint's of an otherwise completely unadorned temple, how and when did the granite wear away?, the site was buried so how much could that be attributed to weathering since it would mainly have been protected from that unless the weathering occured when the site was not so deeply buried, hence before Seti's temple complex was even built around it, finding a cartouche on such a site which previously would have been an enigma can make a career of course so there is also that temptation eh!.

Let's be fair Harte Archaeology and especially the Egyptology branch of it has had more than it's fair share of liar's and fraud's and many great name's are built on exactly such action's but of course they have simply in such cases not been exposed.

a reply to: LABTECH767

It would also be nice to see if another OLDER temple complex exists around the site of the Osirion 50 feet beneath the Seti Complex, and if so how extensive that really is?.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio

My point here is that the island was home to the Minoan people in 1500 BC, and across the water the Egyptian Dynasties were long established and very powerful. That is, they were at that time two different civilisations. This isn’t to say that the Ancient Egyptians didn’t originate on the Greek or Cypriot islands and at some point colonised North Africa, particularly the northernmost parts of Nile, but I guess that’s like suggesting the Greeks built the pyramids and we simply don’t have any substantial evidence of this. As to what the real truth is, who knows?
[/align]

The problem with this theory is that the Greeks were very familiar with Minos. Nobody would have mistaken Minos cataclysm for a 11,000 year old event.

The Greeks weren't as educated as we are now, but they weren't total nincompoops either. And they had older records than we do now, because of all the Christian book burnings of the Dark Ages, which have eliminated our history of times before Jesus.

originally posted by: dragonridr

What are you talking about they do know how the pyramid was built. The only people that thi k it's a mystery Is the people that go to those alien sites.

I think what you mean to say is that they have a plausible hypothesis. Knowing something, and having a plausible hypothesis are two different things. It's not even a very plausible hypothesis. Certainly not backed up to the point where the book is closed on it.

Is it impossible that they built using copper tools? No.

Is it plausible that they did so? No. Not with just 10,000 or workers over 50 or so years. It would take thousands of years to lay that many large stones, no matter what workforce you had.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: WeRpeons

Granite blocks weighing Sixty to 100 ton and how they are precisely cut, is evidence enough for me that these structures were not built by ancient man. Either the technology to move such weight and cut these blocks were given to ancient man from an extraterrestrial source or ancient Egyptians were not of human origin.

All the tools are in museums in Egypt, the quarries the stone was cut from and the connecting roads they hauled the blocks on, plus all the hieroglyphs depicting construction methods, let alone the stone masons marks on unfinished blocks, are in plain sight for anyone to see.

But is easer though, to create Alien mysteries, isn't it?

Helps paint the ancient world as primitive, more primitive due to evolution and bigotry ,if not outright racist views.

There are also many known false records about the construction, showing things like long beamed wooden cranes (which would certainly break).

The problem the copper tools theory doesn't address is time. You can't lay that many huge stones at the speed specified, no matter how many workers you have.

It's a space issue. Use too many, and they'll be tripping over one another. Use too few and you'll be waiting thousands of years to finish.

There is no way they were rushing those stones up the ramps, all hustle, speed and hurrying to make each day's 100+ stone quota, to make a 50 year deadline. In the first place, you can't sustain that kind of urgency for a full decade straight.

In the second place, we have to ask: where did the skill come from? Just sprung into existence? There were no schools? No practice runs? No other similar projects with less urgency (such as aquifers for irrigation, or rich people's homes)

How was the skill later lost to the point where later historians couldn't even accurately depict the basics of the process to their listeners?


So much focus on whether the tools were made of copper, while we ignore the elephants in the room?

I mean: have you ever actually visited a real life construction site? They don't rush around pushing heavy objects at break-neck speed. If they did, necks would be breaking left and right. Its all slow motion. Trucks rolling really slow. Workers who look like they're standing around idle, until you see what their hands are doing.

Groups of people setting heavy stones would stop, take measurements, discuss what to do next. Not just slam it into place and grab the next one.

The engineers would need to stop work altogether periodically, so they could go through and review the work up until that point. See if there was a need to make any changes.

180 blocks per hour is not gonna happen. (to build it in 10 years.) I don't even see how 30 blocks per hour could happen. (60 years) Not with precision or any kind of skill.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Not butting in but that is an interesting point.

And all classical work right up to the industrial revolution was done mainly by hand, machine's were they existed were crude pulley's which were apparently not know in the time of some of the most massive masonry work according to most theory's, water, donkey or man powered crane's.
Then came steam power and the internal combustion engine, never made any different to a hod carrier or brick layer but they did speed it up slightly especially in the arduous task of getting raw material's to site.
Modern building going right back to Rome had the problem of concrete drying, it take's time, mortar setting also take's time and man can only work at his own speed for any kind of decent building work to take place.
Month's for a modern house and usually there is less mass in the whole modern structure than in a single stone from the ancient world?.

Most Egyptian structure's were mud brick, ideal for a country were it seldom rained and still one of the most prevalent building techniques in the world today and so too were many other structures around the world, in wetter climates wood was favored and in climates were there was no tree's to harvest stone wall's and turf roofs were the order of the day before modern shipment of building material's allowed for better structure's.

According to the Bible the great temple, the first one took 42 years to build with a workforce of thousand's of foreigners and most of it's raw material's from relatively close such as Cedars from Lebanon etc and it was not even the largest building of the old world.

But given enough man power and time man can achieve the almost unthinkable, the great wall of China, the first one was completed in his lifetime at the cost of million's of lives and he also had time to have a palace complex built that would shame the modern forbidden city into insignificance if it still stood today, after his death it was burned down and even though the raging fire was never put out it was so large it took over two years for the mainly wooden building to burn down.

Also remember the ancient cultures of the fertile crescent, there is some claim that natural Bitumen was used as a mortar as well and even in the dry heat that can take a good while to set and never set's totally hard either so they must have mixed it with sand or some other medium.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I think what you mean to say is that they have a plausible hypothesis. Knowing something, and having a plausible hypothesis are two different things. It's not even a very plausible hypothesis. Certainly not backed up to the point where the book is closed on it.

There are more than one hypotheses concerning the construction, and all of them are plausible.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Is it impossible that they built using copper tools? No.

Is it plausible that they did so? No. Not with just 10,000 or workers over 50 or so years. It would take thousands of years to lay that many large stones, no matter what workforce you had.

The problem with this is that it ignores all the other pyramids that Egyptians certainly built.
For example, the Red Pyramid. That structure actually has indications on its blocks of when they were laid, so there is no question about who built it. It's only slightly smaller than the Great Pyramid. According to your mistaken belief, the Red Pyramid would take (at least) hundreds of years to build, but the writing on it tells a completely different story.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
The problem the copper tools theory doesn't address is time. You can't lay that many huge stones at the speed specified, no matter how many workers you have.

It's a space issue. Use too many, and they'll be tripping over one another. Use too few and you'll be waiting thousands of years to finish.

It's easy enough to see that in the Giza quarry, the limestone blocks were broken out, not carved out. You seem to think they quarried with copper chisels when it's very well known that they didn't do any such thing.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
There is no way they were rushing those stones up the ramps, all hustle, speed and hurrying to make each day's 100+ stone quota, to make a 50 year deadline. In the first place, you can't sustain that kind of urgency for a full decade straight.

Here you seem to assert that there's just not enough time to stack that many stones. But we know for a fact that at least a couple of kings constructed more than one pyramid in their lifetime.
Also, it appears you assume that the number of stones in the G.P. is a known quantity. It is not. The generally quoted number is based on a solid geometric pyramid completely constructed of stones like we see on the outside. Howeveer, we know that the G.P. Iis not made that way. The interior is a mound of stones mortared together. There is a very wide variety of sizes in that core. Also, there are several known areas that are voids filled with debris and gobs of mortar. The ones we know about are visible because of the black powder archaeology of the past. Blown open entrances revealed this fact.
Lastly, the Great Pyramid is built around a small hill. It doesn't account for a large amount of the G.P.s volume, but nobody knows exactly how large this hill is.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
In the second place, we have to ask: where did the skill come from? Just sprung into existence? There were no schools? No practice runs? No other similar projects with less urgency (such as aquifers for irrigation, or rich people's homes)

There is a reasonable progression of construction starting with mastabas. Djoser's step pyramid reveals that it started out as a mastaba.

Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

The Site may actually have had significance prior to Seti the first reign and if it was for example and it is also of Note that Seti named after Set the arch enemy of Osiris would have happily therefore re purposed an Osirion shrine and dedicated it to his own name sake god Set (if he did indeed dedicate it to Osiris then he was going against his name sake and patron god was he not,

No, in fact he wasn't.

The story you know (called "The Contendings of Set And Horus") is fairly recent (Ptolemaic times.) His reputation changed over times and he was not originally depicted as a negative deity (he was a creator deity.) As the god of the desert, he was a patron god of several pharaohs, though as the high priests of Re and Osiris became more politically involved in kingmaking he becomes less popular.

Set also appears as the lead defender on the solar barge, defending Re from Apophis in the underworld.

Also Harte you will have to forgive me if I find it highly suspicious that these Cartouche were found inside the joint's of an otherwise completely unadorned temple, how and when did the granite wear away?

It was a block from another monument, I believe. They often tore down older temples and used the stones (turning the inscriptions so they couldn't be seen) to build newer ones. It was not uncommon for the successor to do this to the predecessor king's monuments and temples.

a reply to: Byrd
Thank you for that interpretation Byrd, I find your knowledge of the ancient cult's of Egypt interesting, off piste but what do you make of that elderly lady whom believed that she was a reincarnation of a priestess of Isis and whom while at first laughed at predicted thing's that no one could have known (Except perhaps a savant with a particular talent) and some of which were later confirmed.
exemplore.com...
I am not a believer in reincarnation but for people like her it is perhaps more of a reality and who are we to say, maybe she was telling the truth not only as she understood it (I wonder how she would interpret if she was still around the book of the Hermetica which admittedly was almost definitely NOT Egyptian but later Gnostic in origin and possible very late Gnostic from within the last 500 years or so, still it describes a kind of NDE perfectly though it can also be interpreted in a gnostic fashion).

And while I remain convinced the site is older that is a very pertinent point, the Egyptian's (Arab's though most are descended from the blood of Egypt and not only the Coptic people's) are said to have done the same when they reused ancient Egyptian monument's they dismantled to build Cairo and other site's, in fact robbing out of old site's is a time honored manner of obtaining high quality building materials on the cheap the world over and is still happening today.

My question was not the validity of the Cartouche with it's oval enclosure and usually a straight bar denoting from which end it was to be read but whether these stone's were actually ORIGINALLY part of the Osirion or a later part of renovations to the site and even if the site is Dynastic egyptian it could still be thousands of years older than Seti or hundreds with the potential that the site was originally built in a lower lying area before sand and or flood born Nile silt inundated it, if so there is therefore a good prospect of an entire temple complex existing beneath that of Seti's.

Traditionally over time as you know the Egyptian's also absorbed most of there invaders whom became Egyptian/Copt's themselves over time and were there distinct religion's and belief's were not too competing they eventually merged, indeed this was helped in part as the Pharaoh's cult would have found this incredibly important to homogenize there people into a single group, this is best demonstrated in the Merging of Amun and Ra/Re, of course the Pharaoh had to have the cooperation of the priesthood or like the Dynasty of Akhenaten which ended with the death of Tutankhamun (I doubt that was the name his father chose for him) was erased from history, Akhenaten as you know had tried to replace all those small religion's which had previously operated under the somewhat jumbled belief's of the Egyptian' people's with Sun Worship and he is perhaps not correctly credited as the founder of the first monotheistic faith, I say not correctly because it is likely that worship of a great spirit type being is actually far older.

It has been a little time since I have thought about the barque of a million years, the boat of the sun, beloved of science fiction, ancient astronaut's and new age cult's the same whom think of the primordial mound/island as another world in the celestial Nile the milky way galaxy in the sky, best sci fi take on it was an escape in it (though not specifically named as such) by an alien Osiris impersonator whom had conveniently gotten himself a hot blond female host (Well he did lost his todger after his brother Set cut him up and scattered his remain's and Isis his sister had to use a stick as a replacement, stick - branch - surrogate could they have been ancient king's and queen's? - I know the astronomical theory and how there cult's were related to celestial body's and phenomena but just think there may be more to there origin of the legend's that became religion's) in the wacky but still cool stargate series.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Byrd
Thank you for that interpretation Byrd, I find your knowledge of the ancient cult's of Egypt interesting, off piste but what do you make of that elderly lady whom believed that she was a reincarnation of a priestess of Isis and whom while at first laughed at predicted thing's that no one could have known (Except perhaps a savant with a particular talent) and some of which were later confirmed.
exemplore.com...

I believe she was interesting but I'm also aware of a lot of the wrong things she said... so I do not believe she was a reincarnation. She was very knowledgeable and very observant and she was a valued research assistant.

My question was not the validity of the Cartouche with it's oval enclosure and usually a straight bar denoting from which end it was to be read but whether these stone's were actually ORIGINALLY part of the Osirion or a later part of renovations to the site and even if the site is Dynastic egyptian it could still be thousands of years older than Seti or hundreds with the potential that the site was originally built in a lower lying area before sand and or flood born Nile silt inundated it, if so there is therefore a good prospect of an entire temple complex existing beneath that of Seti's.

I'm in the middle of a second trip, and will look it up when I get back home next week.

Traditionally over time as you know the Egyptian's also absorbed most of there invaders whom became Egyptian/Copt's themselves over time and were there distinct religion's and belief's were not too competing they eventually merged, indeed this was helped in part as the Pharaoh's cult would have found this incredibly important to homogenize there people into a single group, this is best demonstrated in the Merging of Amun and Ra/Re, of course the Pharaoh had to have the cooperation of the priesthood or like the Dynasty of Akhenaten which ended with the death of Tutankhamun (I doubt that was the name his father chose for him) was erased from history, Akhenaten as you know had tried to replace all those small religion's which had previously operated under the somewhat jumbled belief's of the Egyptian' people's with Sun Worship and he is perhaps not correctly credited as the founder of the first monotheistic faith, I say not correctly because it is likely that worship of a great spirit type being is actually far older.

Erf. I'll have to wait to later to respond - Just a brief note... 'Tutankamun's name is originally Tutaknaten (yes, changed) but no, Akhenaten's "monotheism" wasn't like "great spirit worship" or early Judaism.

It has been a little time since I have thought about the barque of a million years, the boat of the sun, beloved of science fiction, ancient astronaut's and new age cult's the same whom think of the primordial mound/island as another world in the celestial Nile the milky way galaxy in the sky, best sci fi take on it was an escape in it (though not specifically named as such) by an alien Osiris impersonator whom had conveniently gotten himself a hot blond female host (Well he did lost his todger after his brother Set cut him up and scattered his remain's and Isis his sister had to use a stick as a replacement, stick - branch - surrogate could they have been ancient king's and queen's? - I know the astronomical theory and how there cult's were related to celestial body's and phenomena but just think there may be more to there origin of the legend's that became religion's) in the wacky but still cool stargate series.

I'll have to comment on that later, but I note some mixing of things from modern interpretations into the ancient myth that aren't a good combination (unless this is just a "modern reboot and reworking" of the ancient materials.))

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Is it impossible that they built using copper tools? No.

Is it plausible that they did so? No. Not with just 10,000 or workers over 50 or so years. It would take thousands of years to lay that many large stones, no matter what workforce you had.

The problem with this is that it ignores all the other pyramids that Egyptians certainly built.
For example, the Red Pyramid. That structure actually has indications on its blocks of when they were laid, so there is no question about who built it. It's only slightly smaller than the Great Pyramid. According to your mistaken belief, the Red Pyramid would take (at least) hundreds of years to build, but the writing on it tells a completely different story.

Nobody is going to contend that the Egyptians didn't rennovate. There are dates found in the leftover casing stones of the Red Pyramid, right?

But how big are the blocks of the Red Pyramid?

The moving of gigantic blocks is what has the alternative community so confused. A similarly big structure made of smaller blocks is not a surprise. If the Red Pyramid has smaller stones, then there's no reason to doubt it was built.

You can move large numbers of small stones with a large workforce. But moving large stones doesn't get any easier no matter how many people you use. It's about having strong enough ropes and/or levers and/or rollers. You could use a billion workers, but if you don't have strong enough materials the stones won't move.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
The problem the copper tools theory doesn't address is time. You can't lay that many huge stones at the speed specified, no matter how many workers you have.

It's a space issue. Use too many, and they'll be tripping over one another. Use too few and you'll be waiting thousands of years to finish.

It's easy enough to see that in the Giza quarry, the limestone blocks were broken out, not carved out. You seem to think they quarried with copper chisels when it's very well known that they didn't do any such thing.

The quarrying of the stones isn't at issue. It is the setting of the stones.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
There is no way they were rushing those stones up the ramps, all hustle, speed and hurrying to make each day's 100+ stone quota, to make a 50 year deadline. In the first place, you can't sustain that kind of urgency for a full decade straight.

Here you seem to assert that there's just not enough time to stack that many stones. But we know for a fact that at least a couple of kings constructed more than one pyramid in their lifetime.
Also, it appears you assume that the number of stones in the G.P. is a known quantity. It is not. The generally quoted number is based on a solid geometric pyramid completely constructed of stones like we see on the outside. Howeveer, we know that the G.P. Iis not made that way. The interior is a mound of stones mortared together. There is a very wide variety of sizes in that core. Also, there are several known areas that are voids filled with debris and gobs of mortar. The ones we know about are visible because of the black powder archaeology of the past. Blown open entrances revealed this fact.
Lastly, the Great Pyramid is built around a small hill. It doesn't account for a large amount of the G.P.s volume, but nobody knows exactly how large this hill is.

I think the stuff in the gun powder gap was known when the calculation was made. Apparently the problem with ground penetrating radar ... etc... is that the pyramid is not quite as massive as expected. So it must either have some hollow spaces or some fill space.

But it's not plausible that the core supports could have been built primarily of fill material and still be standing.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
In the second place, we have to ask: where did the skill come from? Just sprung into existence? There were no schools? No practice runs? No other similar projects with less urgency (such as aquifers for irrigation, or rich people's homes)

There is a reasonable progression of construction starting with mastabas. Djoser's step pyramid reveals that it started out as a mastaba.

And later on, everyone forgot how.

And the forgetting of technology is the #1 argument against very old construction also. Interestingly....

The limestone casing stones of the Great Pyramid were ripped off by Mosque builders in Cairo during the middle ages, and at least one effort was made to dismantle it entirely. However it simply too difficult to dismantle.

That tells mere there is an order of magnitude difference in the difficulty of the casing, vs. the core construction.


If the great dynastic kings of Egypt believed themselves to be reincarnated versions of much older kings, they might have credibly claimed to have built the pyramids that corresponded with those kings (during their earlier lifetime.)

So they would naturally want to renovate the creations of their earlier lives. Lay claim to them, and then go back to sleep (by which I mean die, to be reborn again later.)

The stones in any of the pyramids aren't so large as to be the sort of problem you describe.
A great many temples have stones 50 times the size of the stones in the GP.

The Red Pyramid took 16 or 17 years to build. It's the third largest pyramid in Egypt.

You can't find as much info about it as the GP because the fringe ignores it so nobody has to re state any of the facts about it.
If you look, you'll find that the construction differs little from that in the GP, though the interior layout is not the same.

The limestone used a Giza was of a better quality that that at Dashur. But both were covered in fine Tura limestone casing, so that's understandable.

Harte

There is also the issue of one having a 43 degree incline, while the other has a 51 degree incline.


Even if a person is adamant about the very old construction theory, it is unlikely the casing stones would have lasted from 11,000 BC into the middle ages, and still look good.

The very old construction theory basically requires the dynastic Egyptians to have put the casing stones there. Just as it requires the dynastic Egyptians to have cut the human face into the Sphinx.

The evidence against Dynastic Egypt building it is, of course, the inability of ancient historians to accurately describe the construction. Indeed, they did describe it, but quite inaccurately. The fact they believed they knew how it was constructed points to some kind of propaganda campaign. A story circulating around that had quite a lot of detail and sounded true to them. Someone had to be telling that story, and in a way that they believed it, but who?

Who if not the priests of Egypt themselves?

I don't know if the Atlanteans (inhabitants of the large island where the Azores are now), built pyramids. Their shadow legacy would likely have been more along the lines of their slightly more advanced legal system, and possibly agriculture developed in the south-central plains.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
So they would naturally want to renovate the creations of their earlier lives.

My understanding was that if a pharaoh died during the construction of one of their monuments, the monuments were completed to the point where they looked okay, and then they stopped working on them and started work on new monuments.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Your Google Earth imagery implies that the site is being filled in, but did you go back in the Google Earth time line to see if indeed that's what is happening?
The March 2017 imagery shows significant shadows in the area of the pit and ramp


Older imagery also show shadows, also well as the cliff face. Perception depends on the angle of the photo and the time of day. Could it be that the building of a military base atop the site is only to help protect it from vandals and walling off the pit and ramp was to protect military personnel from falling in?

2003 -
2009 -

a reply to: dragonridr

Michealangelo went blind? This site never fails to provide the lulz.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
So they would naturally want to renovate the creations of their earlier lives.

My understanding was that if a pharaoh died during the construction of one of their monuments, the monuments were completed to the point where they looked okay, and then they stopped working on them and started work on new monuments.

I'm looking at how the legend of a construction time during the pharaoh's lifetime comes from.

Possibility #1 : They believed in reincarnation.

If so, then Khufu could have believed he was a reincarnation of a much earlier king Khufu. Fixing the outer finishing stones of an already standing giant pyramid could have been his lifetime project. He would claim credit for having built the structure itself in a previous life.

Later on, historians would misinterpret his claim, and put him down as having built the whole thing from the ground up during his lifetime.

Possibility #2; He renovated it, and later historians exaggerated.

He only claimed to do the casing stones. But a descendant 2 or 3 generations later has the books rewritten to say he built it entirely.

Bolstering the achievements of his near ancestors would make the descendant's dynasty look more powerful. Further reinforcing his own rule.

Possibility #3: He somehow managed to build the whole thing.

This requires a lot of ambition on his part. He would need to have felt certain he would live the requisite number of decades, and that the project would not encounter any hiccups (such as 40+ years with no droughts). Quite a risk to his dynasty.

Some plan for how to set 100+ stones per hour would need to be devised ahead of time (and then forgotten afterward). Thousands of skilled workers need to be available. (Possibly leftovers from the Red Pyramid, if it was recent enough.)




One of the biggest engineering issues that gets fixed if we use a much older date is the requirement for the Pharaoh to be alive at completion. A more ancient culture, free of that requirement, could build the Pyramid over hundreds of years, even if it had no advantages in technology.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I was told once that in one of the Egyptian pyramids there is map on wall pointing to the sea & in south America same map pointing in the oppoiste direction to the same spot in the sea.Is it possible two different groups headed out from a sinking island to insure survival in another direction.

a reply to: ericendtimes

The more I read about it, the more I'm convinced that these ubiquitous sinking island stories are referencing the massive rise in the seas at the end of the last ice age. There's been numerous sunken cities found around the world and many other locations where the finds are questioned.