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

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

True, but in the Great Pyramid's unique case, the first people to enter the tomb could be confident that they were the first because the plug stones were still in place, and no other tunnels (besides theirs) were visible.

And they said it had no treasures inside.

I believe you may have forgotten about the 'well' or robbers tunnel that bypasses the stone plugs

thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com...=/fit-in/1072x0/public-media.si-cdn.com...
www.smithsonianmag.com...

Yeah. I had the plugs at the bottom of the gallery confused the "portcullis" system at the top of the gallery.

Apparently the portcullises, if they ever existed, had already been destroyed in distant antiquity. So yeah. A thief could have gotten in via the well shaft. That's definitely possible (and the only likely way the people who entered later would even know where to cut.)

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Hanslune

We can go back and forth with this forever...

You know how the ancient aliens believers always point out those quarries for the reason -well how did they cut away the back wall of the stone?-

You know those places when it looks like someone literally just pulled a square piece straight from the ground in a weird angle?

...Anyways i think they did not bother to weigh the amounts they used in the "concrete" but rather they were working with a set of measurements, like if i take one egyptian cubic metre of limestone i know it weighs blaablaah on average.

This is why the quarries give the illusion of blocks being cut and taken.

also can add that i do believe some were cut, but many others were powdered and cast.

The random shaping could also be explained if they were keeping the blocks in water, so they could cut them while they were wet.

Apparently quarried limestone does not reach its full hardness until it is exposed to the air. But once it is exposed to air, the process is irreversible. You can't just get it wet again and start over. You'd need a whole new block.

But if you quarry it in a way where it never gets exposed to air, and float it down a river in a way where it stays under the water, you can cut it while it is soft.


But once they plucked a stone out of its watery storage, they would have only a small window of time to cut it, before it hardens, so they might have to improvise a bit, sometimes?

Going back to this video:

www.youtube.com...


About 7 and a half minutes in, they show a method whereby limestone blocks with flotation devices attached to the top are moved up hill, by filling a big enclosed canal with water, and blocking the top, and opening a door at the bottom.

The water stays in the enclosed canal the same way as if you put a straw in water, and block the top, you can pull the straw out of the water and the water stays in it even though the bottom is not blocked.

With the tube full of water, the limestone blocks naturally float up to the top of the tube, thereby moving them up hill.


Really cool stuff.


But now looking at the grand gallery, with portcullis' at the top, and liftable plugs at the bottom........ I'm wondering: do you think they might have been able to make it water tight?

Olh............. and now watching to the end. Yes.

That is exactly what they are proposing. The grand gallery, if fully enclosed, filled with water and plugged at the top, could be used to lift limestone blocks up it.

I definitely have to give them props. Best theory yet!!!

a reply to: Hanslune

It required lots of arm twisting from the Roman`s to get their recipe from the Egyptians. And they only got a simple one.



But they did get incredible instructions on how to make earthquake proof structures.

Well they'd have to do about 50% of the work before they had a gallery

www.ancient-wisdom.com...

So that would be a puzzler as to why do it. The entrance to the Galley is fairly tight.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Hanslune

It required lots of arm twisting from the Roman`s to get their recipe from the Egyptians. And they only got a simple one.

But they did get incredible instructions on how to make earthquake proof structures.

The Roman used a far superior version of concrete/cement

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Hooke

But the cartouche names of Khufu (forming part of work-crew names) in the relieving chambers date it to the reign of Khufu.

Yes..I know about the cartouche...and it's highly questionable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, all other unquestionably built by Egyptians piramyds are riddled with names of pharoes or other writtings on the walls or chambers designated for burial. The Ghiza one lacks any of that. The only writting is this cartouche...about which there is much questions, but much smarter people then me have made comments on that. To me it sounds unrealistic, that one would build such a magnificent structure, and being apparently a Pharoe, and yet...you dont sign your name all over it. The cartouche, if I remember correctly was found in one of the tight shafts (or a niche)...which is not a place that would be right to make a claim.."this is my Pyramid, I built this". As I said..it's more common sense to me than a real proof.

You seem to have overlooked the Journal of Merer, which describes how limestone (probably intended for cladding) was ferried to Giza from the quarries at Tura.

If I'm correct, it does not explain granite. Also, it is contested by, what you would call "fringe" sources, that it could have well been just a refurbishment of the previous construction. Of course, that doesnt prove anything, but for me, there is no real proof for the other side of the argument. It's all based on the fact the all other pyramids were indeed built by humans, so this one must be also. But that too is not proof.

To me there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to doubt the claim of Egypt. Nobody knows who built Puma Punku in Bolivia. The craftsmanship is beyond believable considering the supposed age. I actually visited the site a few years back. If you talk to locals and designated tour guides...they do not claim it's of their ancestors making. In fact, they have plenty of reasons to believe it's not of civilization we know..Incas included. And that's their heritage. Of course, one must also take into account that they could be claiming that simply to add to the mystery..which in the end attracts tourism.

But I've heard testimony from stone work experts of the day, and they state..it would extremely difficult if not impossible to recreate it today...even with modern tools. I can give you links if you want to watch it.

What buggs me about Ghiza is that it's unique. And obviously there are plenty of other Pyramids in the area, but it's like they were built with far inferior tech, far softer stone, far less precise, and with far more inscriptions inside.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Hooke

But the cartouche names of Khufu (forming part of work-crew names) in the relieving chambers date it to the reign of Khufu.

Yes..I know about the cartouche...and it's highly questionable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, all other unquestionably built by Egyptians piramyds are riddled with names of pharoes or other writtings on the walls or chambers designated for burial.

Okay, you are wrong.

Also, there is more than one cartouche of Khufu's name, and some of them are variants of his name. So, "highly questionable?" Nah.

Once again I will mention the hieroglyphics found on the walls of the so-called "airshafts," meters up into the GP core.
Those "questionable" too?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Hooke

But the cartouche names of Khufu (forming part of work-crew names) in the relieving chambers date it to the reign of Khufu.

Yes..I know about the cartouche...and it's highly questionable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, all other unquestionably built by Egyptians piramyds are riddled with names of pharoes or other writtings on the walls or chambers designated for burial.

Okay, you are wrong.

Also, there is more than one cartouche of Khufu's name, and some of them are variants of his name. So, "highly questionable?" Nah.

Once again I will mention the hieroglyphics found on the walls of the so-called "airshafts," meters up into the GP core.
Those "questionable" too?

Harte

Howdy Harte

The fringe has done well in convincing people that there is only ONE name of of the pharaoh in the relieving chambers.

Yet there are nine or eight (depending on how you count the partial ones), so count'm yourself.









Yeah and of course the Goyon Grinsell mark a name place on what is now the outside of the pyramid but originally inside the cladding. Fringe runs in terror from that one.



However with the power of denial you can make almost anything 'possible'.

---------------------------

The Inca or more properly the Tawantin Suyu had nothing to do with Puma Punku, it was made by the Tiwanaku - or more correctly they were there and no one else was....so...................

The Inca were very late to the civilization party but conquered the Tiwanaku and made them their Imperial masons.

The Great Pyramid certainly seems like it was built to contain something important. I don't know if that was a body, though. I could see it housing some sacred artifacts, possibly moved from some other site that became too old and broken or flooded or maybe just underappreciated by the people in the opinion of the Pharaoh.

What those might have been is anybody's guess, as they were likely moved again at some point to someplace even more secret. Mystical artifacts that once belonged to the gods, perhaps? Nearly all the illustrations of the gods and former rulers show them holding things and carrying things. Maybe the pyramid was supposed to house the most important of all of them.

They're probably sitting in some concealed chamber out in the desert now, waiting to be discovered.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
The Great Pyramid certainly seems like it was built to contain something important. I don't know if that was a body, though. I could see it housing some sacred artifacts, possibly moved from some other site that became too old and broken or flooded or maybe just underappreciated by the people in the opinion of the Pharaoh.

What those might have been is anybody's guess, as they were likely moved again at some point to someplace even more secret. Mystical artifacts that once belonged to the gods, perhaps? Nearly all the illustrations of the gods and former rulers show them holding things and carrying things. Maybe the pyramid was supposed to house the most important of all of them.

They're probably sitting in some concealed chamber out in the desert now, waiting to be discovered.

Interesting but why place them in an existing cemetery, in something that looked just like the tombs they built before and after it?

originally posted by: Hanslune
Interesting but why place them in an existing cemetery, in something that looked just like the tombs they built before and after it?

I tend to think that they didn't make the same distinction we do between places of worship and places of death and burial. After all, you'd have entire cities of people living in these necropolises. We think of graveyards as places to get rid of dead bodies and basically forget about them after time. I imagine the Egyptians being much more active about the process and thinking of these tombs as merely storage units, likely temporary. There was that tendency for them to gather up a dead person's belongings and store them in tombs for them to take to the afterlife (Anubis willing), not to just rot away.

If the artifacts (or bodies) were remnants from the Old Kingdom or before, things belonging to a god or ancient ruler, a large tomb / temple seems like a reasonable place to put them for safe storage, veneration and worship. Considering how periodically the Egyptians rebuilt and expanded their temples, they'd probably end up digging up all kinds of important things from their distant past that they would want to keep. If you found the actual, original crook and flail of Osiris, where would you put them? Probably someplace impressive.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Also the Khufu ship that was discovered at the base of the pyramid is a certain death-rebirth reference.

I wonder if they will ever discover an ancient water/river system under the great pyramid.

..And even if the pyramids are alien vortex generators or whatever, they most likely housed the dead, so one does not exclude other.

Originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Hooke

Hooke: But the cartouche names of Khufu (forming part of work-crew names) in the relieving chambers date it to the reign of Khufu.

MarioOnTheFly: Yes..I know about the cartouche...and it's highly questionable.

No: the cartouche names of Khufu as found in the relieving chambers have been shown to fit into a scheme of labour organisation (see here, pgs. 125-7.) There's also a detailed discussion of the question here.

Hooke: You seem to have overlooked the Journal of Merer, which describes how limestone (probably intended for cladding) was ferried to Giza from the quarries at Tura.

MarioOnTheFly: If I'm correct, it does not explain granite.

Granite was generally obtained from quarries nearby (Klemm & Klemm [2001]

MarioOnTheFly: Also, it is contested by, what you would call "fringe" sources, that it could have well been just a refurbishment of the previous construction. Of course, that doesnt prove anything, but for me, there is no real proof for the other side of the argument.

If you don't look at sources such as Roth and Reisner, how will you be in any position to evaluate the evidence for the various claims?

MarioOnTheFly: It's all based on the fact the all other pyramids were indeed built by humans, so this one must be also.

Indeed. And the humans in question even left their crew-marks in the relieving chambers (and elsewhere - beneath the sealing-stone in the boat pit, on the core-blocks, etc.)

MarioOnTheFly: Nobody knows who built Puma Punku in Bolivia.

Yes, they do. The ancient people of Tiwanaku were responsible. (For a bibliography, see here.)

MarioOnTheFly: But I've heard testimony from stone work experts of the day, and they state..it would extremely difficult if not impossible to recreate it today...even with modern tools. I can give you links if you want to watch it.

Thanks, but I'm not generally all that keen on videos. I prefer texts, preferably with solid research and citations - such as this one, which examines some of the more unlikely claims for Pumapunku.

MarioOnTheFly: What buggs me about Ghiza is that it's unique. And obviously there are plenty of other Pyramids in the area, but it's like they were built with far inferior tech, far softer stone, far less precise, and with far more inscriptions inside.

A discussion of this can be found here.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Blue Shift

Also the Khufu ship that was discovered at the base of the pyramid is a certain death-rebirth reference.

I wonder if they will ever discover an ancient water/river system under the great pyramid.

Yes.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Ha... Well, does not surprise me.

Its supposed to be there.

How else are the dead going to move along.

All these kind of structures are symbolic mountains/volcanoes with a river.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Hooke

But the cartouche names of Khufu (forming part of work-crew names) in the relieving chambers date it to the reign of Khufu.

Yes..I know about the cartouche...and it's highly questionable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, all other unquestionably built by Egyptians piramyds are riddled with names of pharoes or other writtings on the walls or chambers designated for burial.

Okay, you are wrong.

Also, there is more than one cartouche of Khufu's name, and some of them are variants of his name. So, "highly questionable?" Nah.

Once again I will mention the hieroglyphics found on the walls of the so-called "airshafts," meters up into the GP core.
Those "questionable" too?

Harte

Howdy Harte

The fringe has done well in convincing people that there is only ONE name of of the pharaoh in the relieving chambers.

Yet there are nine or eight (depending on how you count the partial ones), so count'm yourself.

... And these are all found in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber, right?

So if the interior granite was there long before the rest of the upper pyramid was constructed, there's no reason not to expect to see writing there. The bat guano and insect shells that were supposedly found filling the chambers suggests they were accessible to bats at some time in their history. For a long time, even.

We'll ignore the possibility that Vyse wrote them there for now.

Yeah and of course the Goyon Grinsell mark a name place on what is now the outside of the pyramid but originally inside the cladding. Fringe runs in terror from that one.



However with the power of denial you can make almost anything 'possible'.

Why would they run in terror? There is little controversy about the casing stones having been put there by the Pharaohs. The diary of Merer has seen to that.

en.wikipedia.org...

---------------------------

The Inca or more properly the Tawantin Suyu had nothing to do with Puma Punku, it was made by the Tiwanaku - or more correctly they were there and no one else was....so...................

The Inca were very late to the civilization party but conquered the Tiwanaku and made them their Imperial masons.

The destroyed condition of Puma Punku wouldn't be very well explained by that.

There would need to have occurred, quite an earthquake during the geological time the Tiwanaku inhabited the area, for them to be the builders.

On the other hand, if they settled there, and learned masonry by examining the ruins, or imitating, then they might thereby have become to be the most skilled masons in the area.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The destroyed condition of Puma Punku wouldn't be very well explained by that.

Did you know that there was a railroad built right through the site?

Also, the site has been subjected to the "quarrying" of the stone there - and stones from there have been found being re-used all around the area for various things.

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

... And these are all found in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber, right?

Yeah

So if the interior granite was there long before the rest of the upper pyramid was constructed, there's no reason not to expect to see writing there. The bat guano and insect shells that were supposedly found filling the chambers suggests they were accessible to bats at some time in their history. For a long time, even.

LOL, lets see a paper that states there was bat guano in the sealed off section when Vyse blew his way in? Oh and do you now accept there is more than one name there? Did you count them? Ah so you are saying it was the AE who built the pyramid or are you still holding out for the invisible civilization doing it despite no evidence of their existence at Giza and surrounding areas - or anywhere?

We'll ignore the possibility that Vyse wrote them there for now.

There is also a possibility that an alien will pop into existence next to you and make you into dinner plate.....too.

Why would they run in terror?

Because they cannot blame Vyse for that one, chuckle. I suspect you weren't even aware of it. However you can talk to Hooke about that she is an expert on that subject.

There would need to have occurred, quite an earthquake during the geological time the Tiwanaku inhabited the area, for them to be the builders.

On the other hand, if they settled there, and learned masonry by examining the ruins, or imitating, then they might thereby have become to be the most skilled masons in the area.

Okay show us the archaeological evidence that there was someone there earlier and are associated with the ruins? What cannot do that huh? Stuck with the Tiwanaku who are there and who were the master masons.

One thing you cannot really do in archaeology and remain credible is the following. You cannot take ruins associated with one culture that is archaeologically shown to be there, deny that evidence and insist another group built the ruins but don't exist in the archaeological record......really doesn't work well.

a reply to: Hanslune

LOLz I see you are up to your own tricks again. Peddling that deepstate history again. Lets define some clarity here.


Al-Maqrizi the medieval Egyptian historian states the pryamid was built by Saurid before the great flood. Thats Enoch.

You have zero empirical data to back up your claims. Simply conjecture.