The Great Pyramid Of Giza And Why It Was Probably Not A Tomb

What an interesting thread though , Shame it’s disintegrating ...
Lockdown fever , I suspect .. a reply to: bluesfreak

a reply to: Scott Creighton

SC: Explain to me, exactly, how the Grinsell marks prove the authenticity of the marks in the 'Vyse Chambers'?

It was explained to you some time ago here that:

… They were found on G1—on core blocks of G1, which puts them inside G1, when G1 was complete.

…

The names reported (two names of Khufu, one of them the Horus name) are additional evidence for the attribution of the pyramid to Khufu, and so count against your presumption against the “authenticity” of the names in the chambers.

a reply to: Hooke

Let me say first of all here, Hermione, that I suspect this particular post I am responding to was composed by you and not your co-author. I am convinced that your co-author has been composing many of the replies appearing under your ATS alias, using your ATS account as a proxy to his own banned account. And I expect that you will neither confirm or deny my suspicions. But understand this--if I suspect a reply to me has been composed by your co-author and posted by you under your ATS account, it will be ignored. I hope that is clear.

Now, in your latest post you have posted a link to a post written by your co-author on GHMB. If you look closely at that thread you will see that I made no reply to his post (or any of his posts in that thread). Not because a reply was difficult, far from it. But because I generally do not reply to that individual's posts. He has been permanently banned on UM and ATS for good reason. He has been temporarily banned on GHMB several times. Why he has not been permanently banned on GHMB is just one of life's little mysteries as some of his outbursts there are truly horrifying.

As for the Grinsell marks. You know I have addressed this issue elsewhere. For example, here. These marks, including those in the boat pits, are addressed more fully in my forthcoming book. In short, neither the marks on the core stones or the marks in the boat pits, assuming these are genuine, actually proves the marks in the 'Vyse Chambers' are genuine. By that standard, then just because these two bank notes (below) are 'comparable' with each other (one of them is fake), they must both be regarded as genuine and should be accepted, on face value, as such without any need for further checking.



If that truly is your standard of proof, then a friendly word of advice--don't ever start up a cash only business.

SC

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

...

During construction of the casing stones, the relieving chambers would have likely been open enough to be accessible to the work crews.

Why wouldn't they write stuff?

[From an earlier post]The cartouche names of Khufu as found in the relieving chambers have been shown to fit into a scheme of labour organisation (see Roth, Phyles of the Old Kingdom, pgs. 125-7.)

There would have been little point in placing the names of work-crews, aperu, in the chambers once the stones were in place. The scrawled names - essentially indications about which aper was to handle which stones, and in what part of the chamber they were to be placed - were far more likely to have been added to the blocks while they were on site, waiting to be hauled up to the place where they were intended to go. This would also explain why some of the inscriptions are upside-down or sideways: once the blocks were set in the correct part of the chambers by the right crew, it didn't matter what way up they were.

The problem with that hypothesis, is that a written cartouch would be likely to get messed up during the transportation process.


But more importantly: it assumes the 80 ton blocks were moved by the same kinds of crews that moved the 5 ton blocks.


Clearly the secret to how they moved the 80 ton blocks was not widespread knowledge in Egypt. There no depictions anywhere that accurately describe this process.

Even if these 80 ton blocks really do date to Khufu's time, it was probably a state secret, or guild secret of some kind.
There would only be a select few artisans in all the kingdom who actually knew the secret to moving them.

These wouldn't be "worker gangs". They would be respected stone masons, and probably all the 80 ton stones would be moved by the same crew, or just a few crews.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

...

During construction of the casing stones, the relieving chambers would have likely been open enough to be accessible to the work crews.

Why wouldn't they write stuff?

[From an earlier post]The cartouche names of Khufu as found in the relieving chambers have been shown to fit into a scheme of labour organisation (see Roth, Phyles of the Old Kingdom, pgs. 125-7.)

There would have been little point in placing the names of work-crews, aperu, in the chambers once the stones were in place. The scrawled names - essentially indications about which aper was to handle which stones, and in what part of the chamber they were to be placed - were far more likely to have been added to the blocks while they were on site, waiting to be hauled up to the place where they were intended to go. This would also explain why some of the inscriptions are upside-down or sideways: once the blocks were set in the correct part of the chambers by the right crew, it didn't matter what way up they were.

The problem with that hypothesis, is that a written cartouch would be likely to get messed up during the transportation process.

That was my point: that there was a risk that crew names would get rubbed off during transport. It was therefore more probable that the crew names (denoting which crew was to deal with which blocks) were painted on by the aper scribes when the blocks had actually reached the construction site.

it assumes the 80 ton blocks were moved by the same kinds of crews that moved the 5 ton blocks.

Blocks (whatever their size and weight) were excavated at quarries by quarry labourers. They were then transported to the construction site, where they were eventually put into place by aperu, the specialist construction crews.

Clearly the secret to how they moved the 80 ton blocks was not widespread knowledge in Egypt. There no depictions anywhere that accurately describe this process.

Even if these 80 ton blocks really do date to Khufu's time, it was probably a state secret, or guild secret of some kind.

There would only be a select few artisans in all the kingdom who actually knew the secret to moving them.

These wouldn't be "worker gangs". They would be respected stone masons, and probably all the 80 ton stones would be moved by the same crew, or just a few crews.

(I've seen references to 70 tons; I'm not sure about 80).

Some of the latest theories about how the Nile was used to transport the stone are depicted in this Channel 4 documentary.

Statuary with sledges (some depicted with water being poured in front of them to facilitate the transport of heavy loads) have been found in Old Kingdom tombs.

originally posted by: Hooke

(I've seen references to 70 tons; I'm not sure about 80).

Some of the latest theories about how the Nile was used to transport the stone are depicted in this Channel 4 documentary.

Sadly I can't watch it. Not sure why, but it won't let me register.

Statuary with sledges (some depicted with water being poured in front of them to facilitate the transport of heavy loads) have been found in Old Kingdom tombs.

The references say the object being transported was a statue about 1 and a third times life sized.

That is about the size range which even conspiracy theorist will agree the Egyptians could transport.

But it's a far cry from being able to lift 80, 70, or heck let's go down to 60 - ton rocks to a location above ground level.



There are also other interesting issues with these "Old Kingdom" pyramids.

The bent pyramid, for example, has a corbelled vaulted ceiling incorporated into the core structure.

But if the builders of the outer pyramid walls had known how to make corbelled vaulted ceilings, they wouldn't have needed to change the angle. Corbelling would have enabled them to shave weight out of the upper structure by hollowing it out as they built it.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

 

 

Chuckle

a reply to: Hooke

H: That was my point: that there was a risk that crew names would get rubbed off during transport.

Then you simply build in redundancy i.e. you don't paint the gang name onto just one side of the block, but on at least two sides. Reisner (and Roth) leave open the possibility that the marks were painted onto the blocks at the quarry (as Vyse himself appeared to believe):

"He [Reisner] also suggested that each block was originally inscribed identically on all four long sides, because in four cases both exposed sides of a block are inscribed with the same set of names. These texts undoubtedly indicate that the division named on the block was assigned responsibility for the block at some period between its quarrying and its erection in the core of the temple." Roth, 127-8

And also:

"These core blocks [of Menkaure mortuary temple] were generally laid in segments, having previously been fitted together, probably at the quarry... At this point [i.e. probably at the quarry with the blocks lined up] each of the series of fitted blocks would have been marked with the hieroglyph for the division that was responsible for placing the block correctly at the temple." - Roth, p.129-30 (my emphasis).

H: It was therefore more probable that the crew names (denoting which crew was to deal with which blocks) were painted on by the aper scribes when the blocks had actually reached the construction site.

Not according to Roth (see above). And not according to Dr Ghonim:

youtu.be...

H: Blocks (whatever their size and weight) were excavated at quarries by quarry labourers. They were then transported to the construction site, where they were eventually put into place by aperu, the specialist construction crews.

I don't think any of that is being questioned. What is being questioned is your contention, which runs contrary to the above experts, that the marks were painted onto the blocks only after having left the quarry and reaching the construction site.

SC

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That is about the size range which even conspiracy theorist will agree the Egyptians could transport.

But it's a far cry from being able to lift 80, 70, or heck let's go down to 60 - ton rocks to a location above ground level.

You do remember that the large blocks are all at the base of the pyramid and the ones that were lifted up are not that large, right? Most are between five and six feet in length and width and limestone isn't that heavy.

There are also other interesting issues with these "Old Kingdom" pyramids.

The bent pyramid, for example, has a corbelled vaulted ceiling incorporated into the core structure.

Right. And it was built before Giza.

But if the builders of the outer pyramid walls had known how to make corbelled vaulted ceilings, they wouldn't have needed to change the angle. Corbelling would have enabled them to shave weight out of the upper structure by hollowing it out as they built it.

Bent pyramid was the first true pyramid and they were still learning the best way to do things. It wasn't the weight of the upper structure (the interior hasn't collapsed) but some other issue that they addressed. Medium's pyramid shows that they also tried angling stones (and that didn't work, either.)

Sneferu tried three (and possibly four) different designs.

You do remember that the large blocks are all at the base of the pyramid and the ones that were lifted up are not that large, right? Most are between five and six feet in length and width and limestone isn't that heavy.

I think ‘bloody marvellous’ is referring to large granite pieces that make up the internal (possibly load-bearing) sections- grand gallery , and large blocks in the ‘relieving ‘ chambers . Some of these are over 60 tonnes I believe.
It’s these blocks that are the logistical nightmare for Egyptologists - it’s these blocks that the ‘conspiracy theorists ‘ ask about . However these ‘conspiracy theorists’ or ‘critical thinkers ‘ as I would prefer make a point that is never answered satisfactorily:
Show HOW they were moved, to the height they rest at inside the structure. Show us a system where you could lower said blocks precisely without breaking them/cracking /damaging them. With manpower alone.
Where is the AE artwork that shows how to elevate multi tonne megaliths to the place required in the GP design.
Where is the AE artwork showing the ‘ramp’ system ?
Moving a 50 or 60 or 70 tonne granite block is NOT the same as moving a 2 tonne limestone block. Both in terms of manpower and ease of manoeuvrability.

I already spoke of moving my nearly 600kg milling machine with levers and rollers; afterwards the hardwood rollers were split and broken.
What would 60tonnes do to wooden rollers? How much wood did the AE have spare to crush and ruin?
Yes, 2 tonne limestone blocks could be moved with manpower , but also we have to contend with the ludicrous assumption of 1 block every 5 mins for 24 hours a day, for 25 years.
Where in this calculation does it take into account the movement of the large megalithic blocks to their internal positions?
Again, the same questions keep coming up regarding the successful techniques the AE employed in moving such giant single piece stones that have NO supporting AE descriptions/pictures of how they did it.
The same questions will reoccur as no satisfactory answers have yet been put forward.


a reply to: Byrd

originally posted by: bluesfreak
I think ‘bloody marvellous’ is referring to large granite pieces that make up the internal (possibly load-bearing) sections- grand gallery , and large blocks in the ‘relieving ‘ chambers . Some of these are over 60 tonnes I believe.
It’s these blocks that are the logistical nightmare for Egyptologists

They aren't "a logistical nightmare for Egyptologists." Someone's confabulating that. Remember, they'd already done this for several other pyramids before Giza and they had a system in place.

Show HOW they were moved, to the height they rest at inside the structure. Show us a system where you could lower said blocks precisely without breaking them/cracking /damaging them. With manpower alone.

They weren't "lowered." That's just not a usable method of construction for anyone. They were placed as the rest of the pyramid reached that level.

Where is the AE artwork that shows how to elevate multi tonne megaliths to the place required in the GP design.
Where is the AE artwork showing the ‘ramp’ system ?

Actually, there's no art anywhere showing how they built any building. The art that they leave shows Egypt as a perfect place and they don't want the afterworld full of half-built buildings and structures. They show (sometimes) workshops of the estate that kept the estate running (so a few images of boat building and some pottery making, etc) but no images of even the big and famous temples being built.

What would 60tonnes do to wooden rollers? How much wood did the AE have spare to crush and ruin?

They didn't use rollers. The wood in Egypt is mainly palm trees (unsuitable for a lot of load bearing) and some small thin trees with harder wood. Sleds, yes. And we have images and art of those, including one of a statue being moved on a sled.

Yes, 2 tonne limestone blocks could be moved with manpower , but also we have to contend with the ludicrous assumption of 1 block every 5 mins for 24 hours a day, for 25 years.

Think of a modern construction site. Do they have workers bring one brick to the construction, place it in place and then run back for another brick?

No. That's a silly way to make something.

The Egyptians worked on all four sides at the same time, and multiple teams were working on each side (particularly the lower levels.

The same questions will reoccur as no satisfactory answers have yet been put forward.

Possibly because nobody actually asks Egyptologists... they just assume things?

They aren't "a logistical nightmare for Egyptologists." Someone's confabulating that. Remember, they'd already done this for several other pyramids before Giza and they had a system in place.

I disagree. They ARE a logistical nightmare as no egyptologists have any proof, or a viable explanation of how it was done.
What system did they have in place ?
No one knows, not even Egyptology.

They weren't "lowered." That's just not a usable method of construction for anyone. They were placed as the rest of the pyramid reached that level.

How were 60+ tonne blocks ‘placed’? Very hard to ‘place’ one anywhere, and no pictures or description by the AE as to how they did it.
Therefore, there’s a fair amount of ‘supposition’ going on in Egyptology in this regard.

They didn't use rollers. The wood in Egypt is mainly palm trees (unsuitable for a lot of load bearing) and some small thin trees with harder wood. Sleds, yes. And we have images and art of those, including one of a statue being moved on a sled.

I’m aware there is no art showing the true construction techniques , so to me , rollers COULD have been part of the AE movement arsenal . I know they brought in wood from the Lebanon area.
There’s just as much chance of them using rollers in some form as other suggested methods , but I’m no expert, and don’t claim to be !
My Roller example was just to illustrate how difficult it was to move a 600 kg machine , let alone a 2 tonne limestone block , or 60+ tonne granite chunk.
I’d love to see an AE sledge capable of taking 60-80 tonnes of weight and not turning into matchwood.

Think of a modern construction site. Do they have workers bring one brick to the construction, place it in place and then run back for another brick? No. That's a silly way to make something. The Egyptians worked on all four sides at the same time, and multiple teams were working on each side (particularly the lower levels.

With respect , i never suggested taking one block at a time , then running back for more. Of course they didn’t .
The mathematics of one block every few minutes exist because of Egyptology’s solid ‘belief’ in Herodotus’ story of the GP construction , they aren’t figures plucked out by fringe crazies, they exist because of the ‘mainstream’ narrative.
It’s not the fault of the ‘fringe’ that these construction time figures throw up such a difficult set of questions and implications for Egyptology.

This is one area where the ‘ramp’ theory starts to look weak in my opinion , a ramp on each side? One ramp ? The ‘one ramp’ theory seems a very limiting way to construct a four sided object . It leaves so many questions regarding moving the limestone around the four sides.

Again , where is the proof that this method is how it was constructed?
There is none, so it must be labelled as ‘supposition’ or opinion , or ‘belief’ .
I’m more inclined to go with Houdin’s square spiral theory than the one ramp theory , simply as it makes more logical sense. Egyptologists disagree I suspect .

And Byrd, people do ask Egyptologists but their answers are the reason these questions continually reoccur.
Construction experts, architects, and fabricators like myself simply see the gaps in the ‘suppositions’ that other Academics who don’t build , construct, engineer, will not.
No one knows the answer, do they? Egyptologists just need to be humble enough to say ‘we don’t know ‘ but they don’t , do they?
Simply having an ‘answer’ for all these questions , even if the answer is questionable , doesnt really help either.


a reply to: Byrd

a reply to: jeep3r

By the way, does anyone know does the establishment still teach the kids in schools that different pyramid building cultures all over the world had absolutely nothing to do with one another?

Because its the only logical conclusion to start building massive pyramids when you have enough people gathered in one place. (sarcasm)

a reply to: solve

If you want to make a really tall building by stacking stones and piling rubble, a pyramid is the best way to do it.

a reply to: Phage

So its just human nature?



I wonder if its human nature to carve out the organs of the dead and coat the bodies with resin.





Also perfectly natural to fashion a mask of some sort to put in the face of the dead, you know, turn that frown upside down.

If you want to make a really tall building by stacking stones and piling rubble, a pyramid is the best way to do it.

A very bland and simplistic answer for you , Phage.
It’s certainly not the EASIEST way to Make a ‘really tall building ‘ though is it?
Many different designs/refinements of Pyramid going on around the world . a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: bluesfreak

They aren't "a logistical nightmare for Egyptologists." Someone's confabulating that. Remember, they'd already done this for several other pyramids before Giza and they had a system in place.

I disagree. They ARE a logistical nightmare as no egyptologists have any proof, or a viable explanation of how it was done.
What system did they have in place ?

Other than the sleds and the shadoufs and manpower they had to move other objects? Why aren't these "viable explanations" for you?

How were 60+ tonne blocks ‘placed’? Very hard to ‘place’ one anywhere, and no pictures or description by the AE as to how they did it.

That's the bottom layer. The granite blocks only weigh 2 tons or so. Much easier to move.

I’m aware there is no art showing the true construction techniques , so to me , rollers COULD have been part of the AE movement arsenal . I know they brought in wood from the Lebanon area.

That was very expensive wood - it was used for fine furniture and for things for the pharaohs. It wouldn't have been used for rollers.

I’d love to see an AE sledge capable of taking 60-80 tonnes of weight and not turning into matchwood.

See the tomb of Djeutihotep Notice the size of the foreman on the leg of the statue.

With respect , i never suggested taking one block at a time , then running back for more. Of course they didn’t .
The mathematics of one block every few minutes exist because of Egyptology’s solid ‘belief’ in Herodotus’ story of the GP construction

Herodotus is not considered accurate by Egyptologists. They're going by the length of Khufu's reign, as calculated by the cattle count and other yearly markers. And the figure is "around 20-25 years".

This is one area where the ‘ramp’ theory starts to look weak in my opinion , a ramp on each side? One ramp ? The ‘one ramp’ theory seems a very limiting way to construct a four sided object . It leaves so many questions regarding moving the limestone around the four sides.

Large projects where ramps were used (and are still in place) show that they used more than one ramp at a time.

I’m more inclined to go with Houdin’s square spiral theory than the one ramp theory , simply as it makes more logical sense. Egyptologists disagree I suspect .

They're not terribly convinced - and neither am I.

And Byrd, people do ask Egyptologists but their answers are the reason these questions continually reoccur.

The reason that these questions occur is that some people read an article or two (or no articles, as in the case of Hancock and others) and decided "no one knows how they're built" and come up with an idea. When people who've studied and worked on the site say "nope", Hancock and his friends set up a howl that things are being hidden... yaddayaddayadda.

Construction experts, architects, and fabricators like myself simply see the gaps in the ‘suppositions’ that other Academics who don’t build , construct, engineer, will not.

How many papers and books (by Egyptologists) have you read? Have you at least read Lehner?

This is the logistical nightmare

Granite, quarried nearly five hundred miles away in Aswan with blocks weighing as much as 60 to 80 tons (54 - 72 metric tons), was used for the king's chamber and receiving chambers.

From this interesting article that quotes Lehner:
Some Pyramid logistics

Don’t know what you’re on about here:

That's the bottom layer. The granite blocks only weigh 2 tons or so. Much easier to move

Think you must be mistaken .

The reason that these questions occur is that some people read an article or two (or no articles, as in the case of Hancock and others) and decided "no one knows how they're built" and come up with an idea. When people who've studied and worked on the site say "nope", Hancock and his friends set up a howl that things are being hidden... yaddayaddayadda.

No need to bring Hancock into it, I hadn't ; in your eyes , does that invalidate any logical questions?
The fact is, Egyptology HAS NO PROOF how they were built either- no pictures, written descriptions, so whether you like it or not , it’s STILL supposition and assumption.
Yes , I’ve purchased “how the GP was built” includes Lehners influence massively in that book , and Hawass , but is by no means definitive, loads and loads of it is Supposition and presumption.
And I’ve read LOADS over the last 35 years to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Still, many engineering inconsistencies appear in the Egyptologists narrative . ANYONE involved professionally in construction or fabrication are often left shaking their heads at the AE feats , and also at the sometimes ludicrous statements made at phd level regarding such matters.

The fact that you don’t appear to think any of these great feats of engineering are difficult to accomplish says volumes to me. You just think they ‘easily’ managed this stuff?
An 80 tonne block/slab of granite for the internal structure at roughly 27ft by 8ft by 4 ft is something that you think they just ‘hauled about’ do you? How many men needed for that ?
That kind of weight is sickeningly difficult to move/deal with/manoeuvre. Can you even envisage that kind of weight?
Sure, they did it, as the stones are in place , yet Egyptology cannot tell us exactly how. Just ropes and men will do it .
Would all those men fit halfway up the GP? Where did they all go to when pulling it to it’s location , and how did they get leverage out of their ‘force ‘ in such an odd location?
Do you think the Colossi of Memnon were just ‘hauled’ into position ? 1,000 tonnes each ?

You said that they had no really good ‘weight bearing wood’ in AE , so that throws up more difficult questions regarding sleds, shadoufs .
I would really like to see how far an 80 tonne block on a sled would sink into (wet ) sand.
Do you think it would just ‘slide’ along it?
Ever got your car bogged down on a beach? ! I have ! Car not even 2 tonnes, sank in immediately .

All of these types of questions regarding Archaeologists/Egyptologists claims are valid .
Consigning them to ‘Hancock’s cult’ does a great disservice to logic and reasoning.

Regarding the link to the picture of the statue being pulled , is this statue known? Does it still exist? Or is it lost to time ?
I have no doubt brute force was used in most instances in AE, but I imagine that statue was pulled at ground level only, not halfway up the height of the GP. Two very different projects .



a reply to: Byrd

Houdin has another hypothesis developed from his architectural model, one that could finally explain the internal "Grand Gallery" chamber that otherwise appears to have little purpose. He believes the gallery acted as a trolley chute/guide for counterbalance weights. It enabled the raising of the five 60-ton granite beams that roof the King's Chamber. Houdin and Brier and the Dassault team are already credited with proving for the first time that cracks in beams appeared during construction, were examined and tested at the time and declared relatively harmless.

Wiki
"No egyptologists have any proof, or a viable explanation of how it was done."

Right.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

...


Regarding the link to the picture of the statue being pulled , is this statue known? Does it still exist? Or is it lost to time ?

Some more information here.