“Ahem. This is a stack of rocks.”

a reply to: Klassified

I spent some time talking with a friend about this. He lived in Belize, and knows a ton about the Mayans (both current and historical). He put up a pic of the GP and mentioned that it looked so shabby. Then a pic of some Mayan buildings and point out how much cleaner the Mayans built. And if im being honest, their masonry ability is unchallenged. Even their concrete was unmatched by all except maybe the Romans, until modern days.

But the reality is, they scooped up dirt into a pile and laid rocks on its face. While the outside may be beautiful, even today, on Mayan pyramids....the function of them was relegated to mostly outside, and likely only as displays of power/ego. Not to take away from the enormous ego's that built the Egyptian pyramids....

But the GP is a marvel.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
True enough. I do like the Mayan aesthetic though.

a reply to: Klassified

Plus it is smart not to build on fault lines and seismic zones

a reply to: incoserv

Maybe in those instances where they didn't use the wheel, it was because they didn't even need the wheel.

My thoughts exactly .
If I want to send mail , do I use pencil , paper , stamp , envelope , etc. ?
Or just send an email from my PC ?

a reply to: Klassified

Ok then
Seemed more reasonable that they were poured
Kinda makes it difficult understanding what tools they used to cut the stone, never mind the
skilled craftsmen who undertook the job
Mystery

I've personally always like the idea of acoustic levitation... Or some other form of levitation...

However there is literally no info to justify that claim. Just speculation

But there is an intriguing passage in a history text by the 10th-century Arab historian, Abul Hasan Ali Al-Masudi, known as the Herodotus of the Arabs. Al-Masudi had traveled much of the known world in his day before settling in Egypt, and he had written a 30-volume history of the world. He too was struck by the magnificence of the Egyptian pyramids and wrote about how their great stone blocks were transported.

First, he said, a "magic papyrus" (paper) was placed under the stone to be moved. Then the stone was struck with a metal rod that caused the stone to levitate and move along a path paved with stones and fenced on either side by metal poles. The stone would travel along the path, wrote Al-Masudi, for a distance of about 50 meters and then settle to the ground. The process would then be repeated until the builders had the stone where they wanted it.

Certainly interesting to ponder.

a reply to: AnnihilateThis

If something like that were true, it would be a secret retained by esotericists and purveyors of The Mysteries. There would be no writings about it that werent encoded in esoteric metaphors.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: AnnihilateThis

If something like that were true, it would be a secret retained by esotericists and purveyors of The Mysteries. There would be no writings about it that werent encoded in esoteric metaphors.

A secret someone clearly should have told to the ancient egyptians since there is literally depictions of their massive work crews pulling things on sleds using rope.

Unless of course you're saying that the egyptians willfully intended to mislead humans thousands of years in the future because they knew that someone would look at their pile of rocks and go "omg how did they do this!?".

originally posted by: Klassified
This is one theory. Another similar one is that water was used. Yet another suggests a wooden crane with a counterweight on one end, and still another suggests the use of pulleys, ramps and fulcrums. The truth is, we don't know. Nothing wrong with educated guesses, but no one method has been conclusively identified as THE method used.

I imagine that would have to use water in some way. They needed it for sliding the rocks, and at some point some genius like Imotep would have figured out to use it as a power source for various cranes and stuff.

A lot of fuss has been made about the Sphinx enclosure walls showing signs of water erosion, which some people have said proves that it was built eons ago when the climate was much more rainy that it is now. But the Sphinx enclosure is right at the lower at a long ramp leading up to south of the GP, and I can see that as having water pumped onto it all the time to slide the rocks, and that created the wear.

It's tough to determine exactly because of all the materials they used, stone, water, mud, etc., it's still not too clear how much wood they might have used and what they built with it for construction. Almost all of it is gone now. The role of wood in this massive constructions is often overlooked, IMHO.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: AnnihilateThis

If something like that were true, it would be a secret retained by esotericists and purveyors of The Mysteries. There would be no writings about it that werent encoded in esoteric metaphors.

I certainly don't doubt this in the slightest.

a reply to: Blue Shift



Forests of wood would have been required, masses of food. So it would have to be logical to say they were built when the Sahara was green.

a reply to: merka

I am not saying anything other than any great secret like that is obviously not known and thus would habe been kept secret. Additionally i am saying if it were kept secret it would have been kept secret by the people who secreted away information in that time....the esotericists.

Anyone who doubts early Christians ability to burn books, and thoroughly wipe out history, should try searching for a surviving Aztec parchment, so we can start reconstructing the Aztec language.

You know: the one everyone in what is now Mexico city spoke only 600 years ago? That language.

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: AnnihilateThis

If something like that were true, it would be a secret retained by esotericists and purveyors of The Mysteries. There would be no writings about it that werent encoded in esoteric metaphors.

A secret someone clearly should have told to the ancient egyptians since there is literally depictions of their massive work crews pulling things on sleds using rope.

Unless of course you're saying that the egyptians willfully intended to mislead humans thousands of years in the future because they knew that someone would look at their pile of rocks and go "omg how did they do this!?".

Yeah, but the AE were known to lie sometimes........

And it's always possible those pictures were drawn hundreds of years later by people who had no idea how it had really been done. (Since the AE were still there, ..... hundreds of years later.)

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Yeah, but the AE were known to lie sometimes........

And it's always possible those pictures were drawn hundreds of years later by people who had no idea how it had really been done. (Since the AE were still there, ..... hundreds of years later.)

Well yeah... about the victories of war, the divinity of gods, the politics of the pharaoh perhaps... but construction techniques?

Thats like someone today - in the age of "fake news" - suddenly claiming that Burj Khalifa was built with the help of alien antigravity drones rather than conventional cranes because humans couldnt possibly stack a pile of concrete and steel that high.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Anyone who doubts early Christians ability to burn books, and thoroughly wipe out history, should try searching for a surviving Aztec parchment, so we can start reconstructing the Aztec language.

You know: the one everyone in what is now Mexico city spoke only 600 years ago? That language.

Uhhh... "that language" is Nahuatl.
Nahuatl is the second most spoken language in Mexico, behind only Spanish.

Harte

That's true.

The spoken languages have survived, even if they use Latin script to write them.

A better example of destruction would be Maya Script:

en.wikipedia.org...

Still to be found on ancient temple walls and such, but hard to decipher from what there is.

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Yeah, but the AE were known to lie sometimes........

And it's always possible those pictures were drawn hundreds of years later by people who had no idea how it had really been done. (Since the AE were still there, ..... hundreds of years later.)

Well yeah... about the victories of war, the divinity of gods, the politics of the pharaoh perhaps... but construction techniques?

Thats like someone today - in the age of "fake news" - suddenly claiming that Burj Khalifa was built with the help of alien antigravity drones rather than conventional cranes because humans couldnt possibly stack a pile of concrete and steel that high.

It could be scribes of the 6th generation great grandchild of the ruler that supposedly did it. Venturing a half blind guess, or presuming the stone cutting methods they still use must have been the ones that were used.

These are big displays being made by politicians for a political purpose. Arguing for the greatness of their own bloodline as a reason common peasants should toil in the fields while allowing them to live in luxury.

Do you think there was once a time in history when politicians didn't lie?

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Blue Shift
Forests of wood would have been required, masses of food. So it would have to be logical to say they were built when the Sahara was green.

Or they at least went to places that had forests. They were pretty willing to travel practically the length of the Nile to get the kind of rocks they wanted. I suppose they were also hauling quite a bit of wood, from who knows where. Maybe the last forests of the Sahara. Maybe more upstream.

Maybe Nile river reeds?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Just a guess, but when the Nile drained every year, it must have left big cakes of dried organic matter. Maybe if you treated it right, the peat or whatever you might call it, was flammable?

It's not just the pyramids that raise the issue of what they did for fires. They would also need a fuel source for firing their pottery, and for working copper.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Just a guess, but when the Nile drained every year, it must have left big cakes of dried organic matter. Maybe if you treated it right, the peat or whatever you might call it, was flammable?

It's not just the pyramids that raise the issue of what they did for fires. They would also need a fuel source for firing their pottery, and for working copper.

They weren't exactly treeless, living on the Nile. Plenty of acacia to burn, and tamarisk. Neither of which are any good for construction. Construction lumber was imported.
Kitchens typically used a mix of dried dung and straw.

Harte