The Ancient Egyptian Stones Were Perfectly Precise How is this Possible? Many Qs Little Answers

originally posted by: AlanBChrist


I do to know how to put things together better than you
Becouse you still did not answer the question


The DD_ well you know

I'm sorry Alan but you went from bringing up an idea and now have fallen to taunting and inept trolling.

May I suggest you take this marvelously goofy idea to the Graham Hancock's Forum? You'll find people there who will believe ANYTHING as long as its against the mainstream. grahamhancock.com...

a reply to: Hanslune

WHO the hell is this Alan person...

The DDC is just making a point ,. an simply asking for you and the mainstream
to tell us why it is goofy or why yours isn't

Lets both put up or shut up you game . OK here we go ,,..

Me andYou are standing in the desart miles away from giza
But with everything we would need to build a replica of the GP [UNDER ARE FEET]
Why ,., becouse some guy weraring eye liner told us to
becose he needs to write down every step it took to build it

But if you fail,. You are not allowed to convey a word in any way on this forum
ever again,. you know......man up,,

The DDC is Correct

originally posted by: AlanBChrist
a reply to: Hanslune

Try reading my last post again.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: sarahvital

i just found a pic with the stones looking much older looking and with more pronounced fittings.

i'll look for an imaging host site.

In the end we are still talking about raw stone manipulation. People want to throw in some higher tech that did the work, but we only have simple tools, people, a crapload of time and raw stone as proof...lol

Plenty of time

Our ancestors had the benefit of having worked stone for hundreds of thousands of years prior to moving to masonry - for stone tools - it was a critically important skill. At some point in tree poor Egypt they started to use stone for construction purposes - which was literally everywhere - how did they know which stone to use? They knew which ones were softer and useless for stone tools - Limestone and granite were two such. How to cut and shape them? Just scale up what they had learned from making stone tools - percussion worked very well at the small scale and also worked at the larger scale....then to pecking/chipping and using a 'chisel'.

oh like flint being chipped 2.6 million yrs ago or whenever

one would think they would move on pretty fast from spear heads to 430ft pyramids built with 2 million 2.5 ton blocks.

common kids, life is so good we have plenty of time to do this!

no wars, mom can handle the farm, it's only a 5 day walk to the quarry and 2 weeks to drag a block to gaza.
piece of cake.

wait, i have a better idea, we have at least 25K big strapping young guys, why don't we just go conquer some new lands instead?

but pharaohs army is watching us, to make sure we do it. like that idiot that told us the last rock wasn't sharp enough at the corner and made us do a new one!

those wimps?! f em, let them build it. you want to pound rocks for 20 yrs or pound heads?

let's blow this popcorn stand.

There were several factors that contributed to the decline of the Old Kingdom, but the most important issue was the erosion of the authority of the Pharaoh and the accompanying growing power of the nobility and priesthood. This led to the decentralization of power in Egypt and constant power struggles and civil war.

i bet this was in the making for a long time.

originally posted by: sarahvital

oh like flint being chipped 2.6 million yrs ago or whenever

Those weren't done by us.
However, in the timeframe Hans gave, humans WERE utilizing limestone and basalt for tools. They used exactly the methods Hans laid out - pecking and grinding to shape the tools.

originally posted by: sarahvitalone would think they would move on pretty fast from spear heads to 430ft pyramids built with 2 million 2.5 ton blocks.

Eating is more important. It took the advent of organized agriculture before anything else could take precedent.

originally posted by: sarahvitalcommon kids, life is so good we have plenty of time to do this!

no wars, mom can handle the farm, it's only a 5 day walk to the quarry and 2 weeks to drag a block to gaza.
piece of cake.

Farms didn't exist until (at the earliest) 10,000 BC or so. Before then, most effort was concentrated on eating (and reproducing.)

originally posted by: sarahvitalwait, i have a better idea, we have at least 25K big strapping young guys, why don't we just go conquer some new lands instead?

They did this as well.
They had more than enough people to do both.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Harte


Well, you have a point. But the reason given is for National security,

Whose exactly? I've never found anyone terribly concerned about what ancient civilization archaeological remains would contain that would disturb a modern state. Unless they are a theocracy and a bit nuts.

Or unless a large part of their economy is built on tourism.

Egypt's military actually runs quite a lot of the economy. I guess people are too afraid to rob a store that's owned by soldiers.

I think you haven't realized what Hans is saying here.
Or maybe you think that new finds would NOT increase tourism? LOL

Harte

It looks evident that this find was in Egypt's back pocket for a while, and suddenly pops up just when tourism is beginning to wane.

www.bbc.com...

New finds are great if they can get the tourist marketing set up to collect some revenue. If it's just sitting out in the desert, and a few U Tubers are going to get in a jeep and drive out there, it probably isn't going to make any money right away, and could distract from the sites that are generating revenue.

originally posted by: Harte


Farms didn't exist until (at the earliest) 10,000 BC or so. Before then, most effort was concentrated on eating (and reproducing.)

Actually reproduction rates were at replacement level back then.

When you're hunting 5 ton animals, one kill is enough to eat for a good month, if you can keep the meat from spoiling.

So no: I don't think they concentrated much effort at all on eating.

After the rise of agriculture, they started needing 10 kid families just to provide enough labor, but the Nile was kind of an exception of sorts, because it was just so very fertile when the flooding went right.

originally posted by: Hanslune


Psusennes I was the only undisturbed Pharaoh's burial unfortunately high ground water dissolved all the organic matter but left his solid silver coffin (stolen from an earlier pharaoh's burial) and his burial mask.

en.wikipedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

i.pinimg.com...

www.touregypt.net...

www.touregypt.net...

Seriously? We've got documentation of a pharoah stealing a predecessor's coffin?

But nobody thinks the interior structure of a large pyramid could have been reappropriated from an earlier structure?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


Seriously? We've got documentation of a pharoah stealing a predecessor's coffin?

But nobody thinks the interior structure of a large pyramid could have been reappropriated from an earlier structure?

Yes, we do it wasn't just peasants stealing it was probably organized. Apples and Oranges. You seem to believe that the AE reused stone and structures and built on them? Yes they did and you can usually tell when they did so like at the Temple of Hathor at Dendera.

The problem with the pyramids is there is no evidence this occurred except in the sense of the outer buildings, walls and mortuary and river temples being re-used in that manner and not on site. The pyramid itself? Okay do you have evidence the original structure existed and was improved on? None that I've seen that is compelling.

There COULD have been an earlier structure there but it is only a theory and the trial passages speak against it. If you are trying to push the date of the pyramids back thousand and thousands of years you run into the problem of no sign of the folks who did this and were working stone - and left no other traces of themselves.

"back pocket"

Several thousand sites are known or suspected in Egypt: Far far to much area that is full of ruins and not enough money or qualified people. They have vast areas that have not even been surveyed or tested (test pits or radar used). It is estimated it would take forty years to just survey what might lie underneath Cairo not to mention all the other places especially the delta where much stuff is buried under meters of soil brought by the former floods. About 1/100 of 1 percent of Egypt has been excavated.

originally posted by: sarahvital


one would think they would move on pretty fast from spear heads to 430ft pyramids built with 2 million 2.5 ton blocks.

You will find that the number of stones made is more in the range of 500-900,000 - the estimate you are repeating was made before it was realized that the AE incorporated into the structure a sizable portion of the ridge line. The minimum volume of these hills can be estimated at 12% and 23% respectively of the volume of Khafre and Khufu.





, hal.archives-ouvertes.fr...

a reply to: Hanslune

Here's the problem sunshine,
The big wigs in Egypt have in no way adopted ANY ramp method
to date.. don't matter if the ramps are UP , DOWN , or SIDEWAYS ,..

Becouse of this , there is only one way to find the one that is correct
and that is to challange any other method that is out there

The DDC cares not,. about any suggestions , or false sense of importance,,.
The fact is you could have called the DDC wrong but you didn't
becouse you can't

And the DDC thanks you for that...

originally posted by: AlanBChrist
a reply to: Hanslune

Chuckle: Oh, my MORE childish taunting.

Still not working dude.

Look up the word: inept in regards to your trolling attempts

1 : generally incompetent : bungling
2 : lacking in fitness or aptitude : unfit
3 : not suitable to the time, place, or occasion : inappropriate often to an absurd degree
4 : lacking sense or reason : foolish

originally posted by: Hanslune

The problem with the pyramids is there is no evidence this occurred except in the sense of the outer buildings, walls and mortuary and river temples being re-used in that manner and not on site. The pyramid itself? Okay do you have evidence the original structure existed and was improved on? None that I've seen that is compelling.

Even in the case of the Pyramid at Meidum? Where the inner structure has its foundation in bedrock, and the outer structure had its foundation on sand?

The outer structure collapsed in antiquity, but the inner structure not only survived the collapse, but still stands to this day.

That's not good evidence?

There COULD have been an earlier structure there but it is only a theory and the trial passages speak against it. If you are trying to push the date of the pyramids back thousand and thousands of years you run into the problem of no sign of the folks who did this and were working stone - and left no other traces of themselves.

I don't think they ever had a very large population. Just a very favorable "time spent getting food" to "time available to do interesting stuff" ratio.

The only reason we find remains at all from the 80,000 years of the ice age is because it lasted 80,000 years. The population was small enough that, if it had been a shorter span of time, we might not even know about it.

If a small population spends multiple generations on a project, they can bring the same amount of labor to bear as a large population could in 40 years.

"back pocket"

Several thousand sites are known or suspected in Egypt: Far far to much area that is full of ruins and not enough money or qualified people. They have vast areas that have not even been surveyed or tested (test pits or radar used). It is estimated it would take forty years to just survey what might lie underneath Cairo not to mention all the other places especially the delta where much stuff is buried under meters of soil brought by the former floods. About 1/100 of 1 percent of Egypt has been excavated.

Egypt had an impressively large population. Also their way of life had a heavy impact on the land.

But with all that population, their grand scale building phase only lasted about 5 generations. And then it ended.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

The problem with the pyramids is there is no evidence this occurred except in the sense of the outer buildings, walls and mortuary and river temples being re-used in that manner and not on site. The pyramid itself? Okay do you have evidence the original structure existed and was improved on? None that I've seen that is compelling.

Even in the case of the Pyramid at Meidum? Where the inner structure has its foundation in bedrock, and the outer structure had its foundation on sand?

The outer structure collapsed in antiquity, but the inner structure not only survived the collapse, but still stands to this day.

That's not good evidence?

Evidence of it being built separately? Yes, evidence that later additions collapsed, yes? Evidence of it being done x years before by different people? No

Djoser step pyramid shows evidence of it being added too.

Remind me in your idea x folks built stuff and the AE showed up and then added to these correct? How long ago before the AE showed up do you feel these other folks were around and building?

If a small population spends multiple generations on a project, they can bring the same amount of labor to bear as a large population could in 40 years.

They might but they would leaves signs of their being there. We do see evidence people were there but they weren't around Giza in any numbers and show no evidence of masonry and their artifacts are not found at Giza or associated with those structures - think pottery.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

The problem with the pyramids is there is no evidence this occurred except in the sense of the outer buildings, walls and mortuary and river temples being re-used in that manner and not on site. The pyramid itself? Okay do you have evidence the original structure existed and was improved on? None that I've seen that is compelling.

Even in the case of the Pyramid at Meidum? Where the inner structure has its foundation in bedrock, and the outer structure had its foundation on sand?

The outer structure collapsed in antiquity, but the inner structure not only survived the collapse, but still stands to this day.

That's not good evidence?

Evidence of it being built separately? Yes, evidence that later additions collapsed, yes? Evidence of it being done x years before by different people? No

And the final part being done by people of inferior skill to the first part?

Djoser step pyramid shows evidence of it being added too.

Remind me in your idea x folks built stuff and the AE showed up and then added to these correct? How long ago before the AE showed up do you feel these other folks were around and building?

I'm thinking pre younger dryas, and so also pre green Sahara.

If a small population spends multiple generations on a project, they can bring the same amount of labor to bear as a large population could in 40 years.

They might but they would leaves signs of their being there.

They might leave signs, but the area wouldn't be desert during the time between them and the Ancient Egyptians.

The dry nature of Egypt's landscape accounts for quite a bit of why we find so much old stuff there.

Biodegradable stuff tends to biodegrade in a wet environment.

We do see evidence people were there but they weren't around Giza in any numbers and show no evidence of masonry and their artifacts are not found at Giza or associated with those structures - think pottery.

Pottery isn't a requirement for masonry. It's a great invention, but you could be pretty advanced in other areas, and have no knowledge of pottery.

Studies done on the Natufian culture (earliest known farmers), showed they tended to make their bowls by grinding out a piece of rock into a bowl. So they didn't know pottery, but they got by. And yet we only really see this in the context of grinding grain.

Wood makes for good bowls to, and in the pre Younger Dryas, Egypt had plenty of wood, apparently.

a reply to: Hanslune

The DDC is not interested in seseme street's word of the week ,
but would never discourge anyone from learning at there own pace
They are more than wecome back to the class when they are ready


The DDC

p.s. who the hell is this Dude person,.,. no matter

originally posted by: AlanBChrist
a reply to: Hanslune

word of the week ,

ultracrepidarian

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous




And the final part being done by people of inferior skill to the first part?

Or being rushed or cheaply done

They might leave signs, but the area wouldn't be desert during the time between them and the Ancient Egyptians.

The dry nature of Egypt's landscape accounts for quite a bit of why we find so much old stuff there.

Biodegradable stuff tends to biodegrade in a wet environment.

Sites known for the Pre-dyanstic period
cdn.britannica.com...

Archaeologist have indefied multiple cultures form the Paleolithic to the neolithic. None had masonry or the populations to do such work and of course left no traces of their culture at those site - all we see is Egyptian materials
en.wikipedia.org...

Pottery isn't a requirement for masonry. It's a great invention, but you could be pretty advanced in other areas, and have no knowledge of pottery.

It shows they had the storage capacity to feed a lot of people, ie over capacity. You can build stuff without pottery but most construction is done with it being as part of the culture.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

They might leave signs, but the area wouldn't be desert during the time between them and the Ancient Egyptians.

The dry nature of Egypt's landscape accounts for quite a bit of why we find so much old stuff there.

Biodegradable stuff tends to biodegrade in a wet environment.

Sites known for the Pre-dyanstic period
cdn.britannica.com...

Archaeologist have indefied multiple cultures form the Paleolithic to the neolithic. None had masonry or the populations to do such work and of course left no traces of their culture at those site - all we see is Egyptian materials
en.wikipedia.org...

They did all know how to work stone, though.

The link you gave is pretty good. Reading about the various tool cultures, it's interesting that the Khormusan and Halfan ones left traces of hematite, IE. Iron Rust.

I wonder how they are able to feel certain that it was never worked properly into Iron? That would make it much easier to cut granite.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


I think part of the problem is that we expect to see them use masonry the same way, for the same purposes, as later civilizations did.

To a largely egalitarian society, that is small enough in numbers that it doesn't feel the need for social status layers, or other forms of extreme inequality, making an impressive palace serves little purpose. Nor an impressive grave marker.

Masonry can give you a good defense against herds of Mammoth attempting to overrun your settlement, though. 5 ton blocks, when interlocked, become difficult or impossible to move, even if the animal trying to knock it over is 5 tons themself. (Anything made from smaller blocks would be susceptible to damage.)

Other uses would be irrigation, or harnessing seismic vibrations. Elephants/Mammoth communicate over long distances using low frequency seismic waves. If you can detect those, then you can detect a mammoth herd while it is still very far away. The odd nubs, or "hand holds" that get found on some megalithic masonry might have been places to mount a sound board to make an audible noise when a vibration moves through the rock.

And also the sonic reverberation traits of the AE's grand gallery are well known.

Pottery isn't a requirement for masonry. It's a great invention, but you could be pretty advanced in other areas, and have no knowledge of pottery.

It shows they had the storage capacity to feed a lot of people, ie over capacity. You can build stuff without pottery but most construction is done with it being as part of the culture.

But there is no expectation for there to be a lot of people........

Drag a mammoth carcass to the site, and you've got food for a month.

People that eat grain store it in pots. People that eat meat, store it in animal skins most likely.

Meat eaters, who are getting their daily protein allowance, are going to be able to move a lot more stone. You tear down your muscles, you gotta rebuild them.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Drag a mammoth carcass to the site, and you've got food for a month.

Not in that heat - they could of course smoke or more easily dry it. No Mammoth but perhaps elephants

I'd like to see half of you guys have to move a full sized refrigerator up to the third floor of a three story house....then move up to a grand piano ect.....

Then come back and contemplate this....

Moving heavy objects is no joke..

I don't care how big your crew is, you're not building the pyramids with ropes and sand and water and manpower or whatever...