107 Wonders of the Ancient World

Originally posted by Has2b
reply to post by Harte

 

Anyway this seems to have derailed the OP's intention somewhat. I find your challenges to almost every thread I read here interesting , and just point out to you that your seemingly arrogant dismissmal of others thoughts are based on your own flimsy opinions!

When sceptics have to use ridicule instead of logic they do make a point if you think about it.

It is not the way I would prefer to make the point but it doesn't completely derail the intention of the debate.

I would prefer rational scepticism we need more of that including scepticism of the sceptics sometimes.

Originally posted by Has2b
LOL

You are nit picking! As you know there has been several expeditions/efforts to discover unknown voids and chambers all without significant discovery so far. french found some sand, Japanese a few unproven anololies, etc

Even if the voids represent (say 25% volume) this adds to complexity and time taken! As easier to lay blocks than build precise structurally sound load baring chambers that allow for engineering soundness that has preserved the structure in the face of elements and earthquakes for millenia

AS for your claim as rediculous. Without evidence of your "hollow pyramid" concept you are being as equally subjective.

The poster was merely making an illustrative estimate, based on some commonly accepted knowns (so far)

The numbers used by the poster in question are "knowns" only to people that have not bothered to look into the matter.

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
If your a math teacher you must be familar with the phrase "show the work".

When I was a kid math teachers always told me to do that.

You showed no work.

This is true in this case. Do you wonder whether I've ever posted the facts as I've stated them here? I've been talking about this right here at ATS for three and a half years now.

I told you both the truth. You two have shown you're not interested in the truth because you have made no attempt to verify what I've said.

I have already made the effort to verify what you have said, it's just that somebody else was saying it at the time.

However, here's a freebie for you both:

Borchardt agreed with Lepsius' view that the core masonry was arranged in inclined accretion layers. However, recent investigations made by French geophysicists have shown that the structure of the core is extremely heterogeneous. It probably also contains compartments filled with sand, probably small rubble and other waste material, which would not only have saved considerable time, but would have diverted the pressure inside the pyramid more effectively than did solid masonry. This must have also been helpful during the occasional earthquakes that occur in Egypt. However, the dimensions and arrangements within the core of these compartments cannot at this point be precisely determined. These and other factors explain why recent estimates by some scholars reduce the number of estimated blocks in the pyramid from about 2.3 million down to about half of that, which of course have considerable impact on the time and labor required to complete the structure.

My emphasis

Please note also the following, which basically refutes the idea that the number of blocks or the weight of the G.P. can be deduced from the calculation of it's volume:

Khufu probably abandoned the royal necropolis at Dahshur because it lacked enough space to build the large complex he intended for his burial, and because there was not enough limestone nearby, but he may have also been concerned with the stability of the subsoil, which consists of slaty clay. He choose instead to build his pyramid on a rocky outcropping in the desert near modern Giza, where the subsoil was much more stable and there was also an abundant supply of high-quality limestone.

Like a few other pyramids, the structure was built over a rock jutting up in the middle, which made the pyramid core easier to construct and at the same time, strengthened it. Otherwise, the outcropping was reduced to a horizontal surface that was level to within just 2.1 cm (under one inch).

Again, my emphasis.
The quoted pyramid facts above can be found at this site, among about 10,000 other sites on the web.

The dimensions of the rock outcropping contained within the G.P. (around which the thing was built) are currently unknown.

So, we don't know how many voids but we've seen some large ones (where, for example, Howard Vyse blew the structure open with dynamite) and we don't know the size of the rock outcropping that the pyramid surrounds.

These two basic facts are well-established today. Either one of you two could easily have found out these irrefutable facts about the G.P. if you had simply followed the lead I gave you. Yet you not only failed to do so, you failed to even try.

You two are not in the least interested in the facts that are known about the G.P. are you? Could that be because these facts inconveniently get in the way of some fabulous fantasy you wish to maintain about how and why the G.P. was erected?

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
You also focused on a very small prtion of the many wonders of the world.

True, but I was merely responding to assertions that I knew were certainly erroneous.

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
I believe it is a good idea to figure out what is true then choose what to believe not the other way around.

As (I hope) you can now see, this admonition applies far more aptly to yourself than to me.

I think both of you would be amazed to find the amount of information that has been posted here at ATS on this (and similar) subject(s) in the past. While I realize the search function here is not the most ideal, I would suggest that, if your theories are challenged here by someone, you might at least put forth the effort required to find what your challenger has said (and linked to) before, right here at this board, prior to pretending that he is merely mouthing off.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Harte: "I think both of you would be amazed to find the amount of information that has been posted here at ATS on this (and similar) subject(s) in the past.... prior to pretending that he is merely mouthing off."

Has2b: Simply because one doesn't post regularly does not mean we don't read regularly. Indeed it is obvious you claim considerable knowledge and seem to be a stout defender of the orthodox Eygptologist view.
If you were not a prolific arguer of such things I would not have commented.

Sheesh it is like trying to take a dear (Harte) carcass off a ravenous mountain lion!

Lets look at the basics maths teacher!

Based on your source quote above:

"recent estimates by some scholars reduce the number of estimated blocks in the pyramid from about 2.3 million down to about half of that, which of course have considerable impact on the time and labor required to complete the structure."

OK Please check my homework. I acknowledge the absolute precise number and weight of blocks can only be estimated but

2.3 million blocks
divided by 2
equals 1.15 million

Days 360 per year ( give them 5 days off for rounding "simplicity")
20 years
Equals 7200 days

divide 1.15million by 7200 days equals 160 blocks per day
say 8 hours hard continuous labour per day in daylight
160 divided by 8

equals

20 blocks of roughly an average of 2 tons (40 tons) per hour!!!!

equals

1 block every 3 minutes!!!!!

Many came locally, some from 20 miles away accross the Nile, and granite some 500 miles south at Aswan

Now before I bother to show estimated calculations of how many persons it would take to quarry, barge, drag those blocks, precisely align, feed , supervise, the back up& medical crews etc

You must also consider any one of your traditional theories for the method that blocks were transported. Pick your favourite most "efficient" and if that includes a ramp of any sort then based on reasonable incline your maths ought be good enough to realise the volume of "said ramps" must be approximately equivalent to the volume of blocks required for the pyramid itself!

Another 40 tons per hour!


As for the bedroock outcropping issue you raise: The masonry level in the "well shaft" down to grotto, in middle of pyramid does give some indication of the estimated level of the dome of bedrock.

If you open your mind....... and give serious consideration to all of the logistics involved (including the many professional estimates of how long it would take to quarry the amount of limestone today with modern equipment let alone primitive copper chiesels and saws!) THEN you would be persuaded to realise:

1. We don't know not even a clue how they really achieved the feat let alone the astounding precision
2. The task is so remarkable that they possessed knowledge and tools /technology we do not have today

.... but we all know that!!! aint likely, going to happen!?, unless every last detail is contested and argued

(Edit: corrected a few words)

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Has2b]

Originally posted by Has2b
If you open your mind....... and give serious consideration to all of the logistics involved (including the many professional estimates of how long it would take to quarry the amount of limestone today with modern equipment let alone primitive copper chiesels and saws!) THEN you would be persuaded to realise:

I'm telling you, this estimate has already been done by a construction engineering firm. The resulting report on the estimate, just the report, not the number crunching itself, was entitled ""Program Management B.C." and was published in Civil Engineering magazine.

The article was available on the web for years, but now to get it you have to order it.
Here's a link

The abstract to the article is here, along with a couple others from the same group on similar topics that you might want to at least know about.

Are you saying that now the civil engineers of the world are in cahoots with those evil orthodox archaeologists that are trying to "hide the truth" from us?

Is it your claim that you know more about construction project engineering that a team of civil engineering consultants from the construction firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall?

Read this article from PBS' NOVA series. It contains an interview with Mark Lehrer that gives you some of the numbers you should be working with.

It also mentions the engineering study I just told you about.
here's a snippet from that NOVA article:

And without any secret sophistication or hidden technology, just basically what archaeologists say, this is what these folks had. DIM JIM came up with 5,000, 4 to 5,000 men could build the Great Pyramid within a 20 to 40 year period. And they have very specific calculations on every single aspect, from the gravel, for the ramps, to baking the bread. So I throw that out there, not because that's gospel truth, but because reasoned construction engineers, who plan great projects like bridges and buildings today and earthworks and so on, look at the Great Pyramid and don't opt out for lost civilizations, extraterrestrials, or hidden technologies. No, they say it's a very impressive job, extraordinary for the people who lived then and there, but it could be done. They are human monuments.

Originally posted by Has2b
1. We don't know not even a clue how they really achieved the feat let alone the astounding precision

Actually, we do have a clue. Perhaps it's just you that doesn't.

Were you aware that the remains of ramp systems have been found at the feet of many Egyptian pyramids, including the Great Pyramid?

Originally posted by Has2b
2. The task is so remarkable that they possessed knowledge and tools /technology we do not have today

This is merely a statement of your flawed belief. If you originally thought the GP's weight could be calculated (even estimated) using a volume calculation, then you simply possess too little knowledge concerning the pyramids of Egypt to opine logically about their origins, purposes or the means of their construction.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Thanks Harte! for going to that trouble.

I won't be ordering the document as I have already read several such hypothesis, but if it was available without that process I would probably read it.

Ah Mr Lehner! and his experimental work with steel, backhoes and at one stage a helicoper to try building a very small mini replica.

Have it your way. The basic numbers even on your revised block number still point to remarkable almost beyond belief especially by clutzs that couldn't make up their mind where the burial chamber should be located!!

Oh no can't put any appropraite quals up against the firm of professionals , but I have seen so many large (small compared) modern projects despite huge margins for error incorporated in estimates REGULARLY blow out in budget and duration of project by more than 200%.

I don't see any point in continuing the argument your mind seems completed determined. I try to remain open to all possibilities but yet to be convinced although there are many interesting theories out there

Cheers
Has2b

reply to post by Harte


For the most part has2b has answered your comment well thank you has2b.

Thank you for one of the sites you posted at least it was helpful.

The comments about cutting the number of blocks in half was carefuly phrased as coming from "some scholars" without saying which scholars or showing how they came to that conclusion. questionable at best.

The reference by Mark Lehrner to 186 stones was a reference to the mini pyramid. It was only 54 cubic meters or 135 tons. His stones were only about 3/4 of a ton each. He made several statements in his book as well as that web site that contradicted himself. If you care to look they are easy to find. I'm not going to point them out since you probably won't believe me anyway.

He cheated to build that pyramid the blocks were much smaller, the volume much smaller, he used iron and a "modern front end loader" by his own admission. The joints weren't as tight judging by some of the pictures in his book. Although the casing blocks were tighter.

I have no intention of researching every poster I see on this board including you.

BTW your comment on the Bimini string was also selective I said I was sceptical of the new finding and await confirmation.

Like has2b I'm tiring of you already.

Have a good day.

reply to post by zacherystaylor



The reality is (in fairness) on reflection, though is that Harte.... is on pretty solid ground. LOL

I have been challenged, because I have some of the research materials and know that my minds eye can see it being feasible (albeit supendously huge undertaking) in the time 20 yr frame.

The basic calculations whilst impressive, hide some reality.

eg One block 2 ton block every 3minutes ; means 10 teams one every 30 minutes, if it is 10 tons then 300 minutes etc

I hope that makes sense?


Harte is valuable, but somewhat annoying as he obviously has studied this and persistent arrogance, can creep in.

There are many anomolies.... I choose to keep an open mind although my leaning is obvious!....

All I can say is if Khufu and his empire created that in anything like that in a human life time.... he has my vote up:

As for the purpose being soley a burial chamber for a pharoh?

... now that is ABSURD!!! There are too many far too many 'way out facts' versus "anomolies" on that! However mainstream will revert to argument about gyphs/ language etc to prove they know all about that too!?

Library of Alexandria destroyed by misguided by religious ferver... sound familiar?

Thanks Harte! you made me think harder! I often don't post as I can be at times just as dogmatic!

Cheers
Has2b

Originally posted by Has2b

The reality is (in fairness) on reflection, though is that Harte.... is on pretty solid ground. LOL

I have been challenged, because I have some of the research materials and know that my minds eye can see it being feasible (albeit supendously huge undertaking) in the time 20 yr frame.

The basic calculations whilst impressive, hide some reality.

eg One block 2 ton block every 3minutes ; means 10 teams one every 30 minutes, if it is 10 tons then 300 minutes etc

I hope that makes sense?


Harte is valuable, but somewhat annoying as he obviously has studied this and persistent arrogance, can creep in.

Thank you Has2b. I apologize for what appears to be arrogance. It's really just irritation at having to make the exact same arguments every three months or so year in and year out.

I suggest that anyone that wants to make claims about anything should first look at the claims that have already been made. What many here refer to (snidely) as "orthodoxy" is actually based on facts that are known. Doesn't mean they're always right, it means that they are reaching for conclusions based on data we actually have in hand.

IOW, there is a reason for every orthodox position, and it's not just because "the common man can't handle the truth!"

One of the reasons I began posting this stuff on message boards is because, in this particular sort of area - pseudoscientific claims made about the ancient past - the number of bullsheet websites outnumber the few useful ones by at least 100 to 1. I had hoped that by placing these arguments out there (with links) that perhaps future google searches would turn up more info for seekers about what is actually known in these areas. The pyramids are, of course, just one example of where underhanded bookselling liars have encroached on the collective knowledge that is humanity's birthright.

Originally posted by Has2bThere are many anomolies.... I choose to keep an open mind although my leaning is obvious!....

All I can say is if Khufu and his empire created that in anything like that in a human life time.... he has my vote

up:

As for the purpose being soley a burial chamber for a pharoh?

I agree that anomalies exist. It's just that most things that (for example) Graham Hancock refers to as "anomalous" actually are not anomalies at all.

Re Khufu's great work, you might be surprised to learn that earlier kings actually built more than one large pyramid during their reigns.

Originally posted by Has2b... now that is ABSURD!!! There are too many far too many 'way out facts' versus "anomolies" on that! However mainstream will revert to argument about gyphs/ language etc to prove they know all about that too!?

The temple complex in the front of Khufu's pyramid tells us it was his tomb. You might argue that it was built later by people that didn't know the truth about the G.P., but then you would need to make the same argument about all the funerary temple complexes that have been found in front of other royal pyramids.

Originally posted by Has2b
Library of Alexandria destroyed by misguided by religious ferver... sound familiar?

There is some question to this as well, but I've poked at you two enough in this thread anyway. I'll leave it to you to find out what I mean (hint: the Library was "destroyed" several times, it's thought that at least once was by accident.)

You should also look into the fact that there were other libraries in the classical world just as old (or older) that that one. The name of the city yields the age of the library of Alexandria. It didn't even exist when the Egyptians were really Egyptian.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

...

One of the reasons I began posting this stuff on message boards is because,....perhaps future google searches would turn up more info for seekers about what is actually known in these areas.

...

The temple complex in the front of Khufu's pyramid tells us it was his tomb. You might argue that it was built later by people that didn't know the truth about the G.P., but then you would need to make the same argument about all the funerary temple complexes that have been found in front of other royal pyramids.

Harte

Thanks. Ok civility is a better way to go than derision. I am interested

1. Why or how do "we" know the structures called funerary temples were originally for that purpose? or were not modified or added?.

2. I have no doubt that AE's had a defined religious significance and much ceremony but most of the pharohs were buried in the Valley of the kings? Why not even one intact body, found in any of the 100+ pyramids?

3. Despite Vyse's find of inscription and carbon dating of external mortar and items of last inhabitation , how can you dismiss the possibility that eg IV dynasty were rennovator's or remodellers with additions, rather than complete original builders?

4. Why build ?
-Complex precise but rediculously small descending shaft , subterranean "chamber" with well shaft and blind exits?
-Complex ante chamber when plugs would serve better form of detering robbers
- Rediculously small entrance to "final burial (Kings) chamber"


5. Harte, what do you make of this?

----------------------------------------------------------
John Cadman's theory model?

Link

The Great Pyramid’s Subterranean Chamber Hydraulic Pulse Generator and Water Pump

Further to John's theory, (proven by replication!) the erosion of the main step at the top of the Grand Gallery (now repaired) screams of water erosion?

Also the system of antechamber seems to me to be easily configured into a self regulating pressure valve? But could be something else entirely than a locking device robber deterent!

The "incomplete/ unusual design " combined flow analysis within sub terranean chamber seems purpose built "design is a product of function"

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

If as you say you want to leave better info..... then please try not to simply ridicule, try your best to educate. Otherwise your intended audience will disregard what you say. It is valuable to get and consider the common orthodox view to compare with!

Cheers
Has2b