How they Built the Great Pyramid of Egypt

Alright, I found a 60 minutes show that reported on an individual who has done extensive studies on the great pyramid. The footage is first rate as they take you into parts of the pyramid that are not accessible to tourists. They really cover a lot here in the fifteen minutes and like I said, the footage is really cool.

They claim that there were two blocks being laid every three minutes non stop and that the pyramid was completed in fourteen years. They do a CGI of a ramp that was used for the construction and I have to tell you that the amount of material to build the ramp out does the pyramid itself.

I do not buy into everything that is presented here but there are some very good points made. The guy has actually found reference points in the ground that correlate to the dimensions of the pyramid and the points are laid out to scale. Its almost like a control grid that was continually referenced as it was being built. Really cool stuff and worth the time if you can check it out.

reply to post by jackflap


Thanks for posting the videos. I had seen them and was tempted to put them in the OP.
He supports the ramp theory [Which may be the way they did it] but as you and I have both pointed out the Ramp itself would have been a massive undertaking almost as much as the pyramid. He also doesn't go into too much detail for the reasons behind the Grand Gallery nor the Antechamber. Those two locations within the Pyramid have always fascinated me.

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
Can some one on here tell me about which star the spinx is looking at?

www.soulsofdistortion.nl...

In short, the answer is:....

# The Sphinx aligned with the constellation Leo at 10.500 BC on the vernal equinox

My favorite mystery about the Sphinx is...

If the Sphinx has been periodically for centuries on end buried up to its neck [Protected from wind storms and what little rain falls ] then why is it its body which shows the most weathering? [Water or wind damage]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9b4e50c4a0ca.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Actually it has been covered up and uncovered many times over through the course of thousands of years. Sand moves in ripples across the desert like the bed of a sandy bottom stream only in larger fashion. This means that the lower on the Spinx you go the more consecrated the sand was that acted like a sand blaster during sand storms. The higher you go the less consecrated. The time periods that the Spinx was covered did not protect it long enough to offset the blasting it got during the times it was uncovered.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


cute cute

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Which still doesn't explain why the head and face show less weathering.

I've always wondered why if it was buried off and on over the centuries why the body is in such bad shape. So was it the NILE flooding the Sphinx that caused that damage?

I found this.
How old is the Great Sphinx?

The age of the Sphinx is a big question that is still in debate by Egyptologist and scientists. According to Egyptologist John A. West and geologist Dr. Robert M. Schoch there is water weathering on the Sphinx caused by precipitation (rain). This would imply that the Sphinx was around at a time where there was a lot more rainfall in Egypt.

This conclusion was determined after careful examination of the Sphinx in 1991. It is their belief that the surrounding wind weathered Old Kingdom tombs to the south of the Sphinx were cut from the same member of rock. This would imply that it may be geologically impossible that these structures came from the same time period. Read more: www.brighthub.com...

reply to post by The-Hammer


Yeah I've read his theories as well.
Interesting reading.
Thanks for the link

Wow Slayer, once again nice work. Do you sleep? I just read the ENTIRE thread in one sitting and it was like taking a sip of water from a fire hose. You’ve certainly sparked lively debate and I find some of the alternate theories as equally compelling as OP. While I can offer no erudite contribution, when I first read OP I thought of the CORAL CASTLE here in Florida and the fascinating story of Edward Leedskalnin. The ONLY mention was by member mugger here.. I recall some compelling stuff from now infrequent member Agentviolet on this connection to pyramids years ago that blew me away. (not as extreme as to suggest Aliens perhaps but equally fantastic)

What was touched on but never answered (unless I missed it) was significance/explanation of pyramid’s alignment to due compass points and navigational/celestial implications.

Some highlights for me were contributions by Blackmarketeer and johngtr featuring Nassim Haramein and Zazz’s highly compelling case for use of non slave labor. Plus MANY others. Good stuff folks.

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." --General George S. Patton

Awesome read, (started at 10pm and it is now after 2am) Thanks, me sleepy now.

Originally posted by boxturtle
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

cute cute

What? You think I made all that up off the top of my head?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Which still doesn't explain why the head and face show less weathering.

You didn't understand what I wrote?

Other than what I stated I know that the Spinx was carved in place. The layers of limestone which it is carved out of could be weaker below the neckline than the limestone above it. I can't find any studies on it as of yet, but will keep searching. I am sure it's a combination of factors that have to do with its history of mechanical and chemical weathering.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

I'm not sure if you read the link in the follow up reply?
You may have overlooked it.

They supposedly floated them down the NILE almost up to the base of the pyramid.
The NILE has since changed course many times as rivers often do.

Huge limestone blocks could be floated from quarries right to the base of the Pyramids. The stones would likely then be polished by hand and pushed up ramps to their intended positions.

I did not overlook that link, but I did not have had the time to reply on it.
Making even one reply for me cost me quite some time because of the language you know, sorry that I have to say that again and again, but that is really how it is.

My answer to your other reply here,

reply to post by spacevisitor


was originally more extensive, but I decided to erase most of it from this reply because it was about the ramps.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Also as I stated in the OP.

No, I'm not claiming to have all the answers just posting what I've read and found from too many hours of reading and trying to get up to speed on this topic

I do not understand why you say that so specifically, because it was not specific aimed at you, although I am very interested in your thoughts and views about it.
It’s very clear to me because of what you said in your OP that you really did study this very interesting subject.

Therefore I started by saying.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I am just curious, so perhaps someone can give me an answer on these questions.

Dr. Zahi Hawass says here.

Sorry, it’s obvious to me now that my writing replies are confusing.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

I assume that all those countless blocks of stone where transported from out those quarries over let me call them “roads” or such, using possibly enormous amounts of all kind of wooden tools and runners and rope as you can see in that link below, how come they never did find those used “roads” crossing the desert who must have been filled with remains of broken blocks and used broken wooden tools and ropes and such?

According to this source, such roads have been found

In fact, many archaeological traces of specially constructed roads have been found in the areas surrounding mines and quarries, as well as around major structures.

www.touregypt.net...

Thanks for that link jam321,

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Here is an interesting read from National Geographic....

Who Built the Pyramids?
An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 workers built the Pyramids at Giza over 80 years. Much of the work probably happened while the River Nile was flooded.

It’s obvious that they did use the Nile indeed as a very handy “highway” for transporting all kind of building material, even while the River Nile was flooded.

Here is an interesting theory about using the flood for such purposes.

Transport Theories
One of the most elegant pyramid building theories has been suggested by Polish engineer and inventor Andrzej Bochnacki. In his book Different Story about Pyramids,
he proposes very ingenious technology used to move the pyramid blocks from the quarries to the construction site.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff5ef5cbb1ad.gif[/atsimg]

www.world-mysteries.com...

Here is the animation.

www.world-mysteries.com...

I am interested in the distance which remained between the flooded Nile and the base of the Pyramids which must have been used to transport all those blocks true the desert.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by jam321

 

Thanks...

Here is an interesting read from National Geographic....

Who Built the Pyramids?
An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 workers built the Pyramids at Giza over 80 years. Much of the work probably happened while the River Nile was flooded.

Huge limestone blocks could be floated from quarries right to the base of the Pyramids. The stones would likely then be polished by hand and pushed up ramps to their intended positions.

It took more than manual labor, though. Architects achieved an accurate pyramid shape by running ropes from the outer corners up to the planned summit, to make sure the stones were positioned correctly. And priests-astronomers helped choose the pyramids' sites and orientations, so that they would be on the appropriate axis in relation to sacred constellations.

From stone pusher to priest, every worker would likely have recognized his or her role in continuing the life-and-death cycle of the pharaohs, and thereby in perpetuating the glory of Egypt.

The problem with this is that the only time the Nile would flood up that close was 10k years ago, not 2k like the mainstream idea of the pyramids

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

This is an awesome thread, great job Slayer.

The work involved was certainly shocking and worthy of awe from our modern point. Even for that time the advances used were while basic in premise outstanding for the usage.


I can see another way that might have helped with the dragging of the stones and there is an abundance of it nearby. Sand is all over and can easily make things glide with ease across other surfaces. On some surfaces it might leave little evidence or could be thought of as natural erosion. It would also be helpful in removing some of the nasty tool marks left behind.

Raist

Lol, 'Slide across other surfaces with ease' ? No sorry. The sand would have made it even harder to push the blocks just on the sand. They would of used wood rollers to move the blocks over the sand. This is one of the biggest mysteries of the pyramids. If you place a 20ton block in sand, it sicks about 20cm into the sand, making it even harder to move.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
My favorite mystery about the Sphinx is...

If the Sphinx has been periodically for centuries on end buried up to its neck [Protected from wind storms and what little rain falls ] then why is it its body which shows the most weathering? [Water or wind damage]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9b4e50c4a0ca.jpg[/atsimg]

Because the damage is from 10 thousand years ago when the Nile was right up against the great pyramid and ran past the sphinx.

There wasnt enough rain if any in Egypt at that time, so you not going to see water dmg on the higher parts of the structures because the water didnt reach that high.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Other than what I stated I know that the Spinx was carved in place. The layers of limestone which it is carved out of could be weaker below the neckline than the limestone above it. I can't find any studies on it as of yet, but will keep searching. I am sure it's a combination of factors that have to do with its history of mechanical and chemical weathering.

True...

I wasn't going to get into the whole Sphinx question in this thread. But it is related. I will provide some information from another thread of mine that Is presently in the works

Now supposedly the Great Sphinx was built in approximately 2500 BC by the pharaoh Khafra, the builder of the second pyramid at Giza. The sphinx was carved in place and is the single largest statue in the world. Because of that there are many layers of strata. [I'm no expert but using common sense it raises many questions] Some have theorized the weathering is proof of it being older than the given date. This is an interesting hypothesis. I understood what you were saying. I am addressing many of those questions in my up coming thread on the Sphinx. What I was getting at is if what we are told about its age is true and that it was created at the same time as the Second large pyramid of Giza was then why does it show so much more wear?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d34ed3dc983.jpg[/atsimg]

We are told that throughout it's long history that it was buried periodically up to and possible over it's head. The sand would have insulated it against wear and erosion such as wind and water damage [from the little amount of rain the Plateau receives] Yet there are tantalizing signs of both wind and water effects.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0376978d51e0.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0607c3d21e78.jpg[/atsimg]

If it were simply wind gouging out areas of the weaker/softer layers of limestone then the surrounding structures from the same or nearly the same supposed period should also show similar wear. If it were water damage/erosion then why doesn't the temples show similar amounts of erosion/weathering?

Look closely at the outer wall of the temple. Notice the weathering difference up top?
The ones up top and behind show similar weathering to the Sphinx and its enclosure
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c598c420dfd2.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e32009a67bba.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/40935943ec49.jpg[/atsimg]

The temple/temples [there are two in the area] were supposedly built around the same time as the Sphinx [+ or - a few decades] was being carved with blocks taken from the Sphinx enclosure for the temples construction as the enclosure was being excavated to carve the body. In the next couple of aerial top down view you'll notice the Sphinx in its enclosure also notice the wall from this angle on the left extends up to and beyond the temple. Now the outer wall of the enclosure and the wall the temple butts up against show similar weathering as the Sphinxes body and enclosure.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99ca4df115a5.gif[/atsimg]

Reverse angle for comparison
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d5cf7f88ba9.jpg[/atsimg]


Let me reiterate...
It appears [And this is something I hear little about] that the outer wall of the temple butts up against what appears to be a wall that shows similar weathering as the Sphinx and it's enclosure. But the temple itself appears to be in much better shape. Now how is that if they were created around the same period?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9531955717d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/76e3baa6479a.jpg[/atsimg]


Many will argue that the temple blocks are in better shape because they were buried and protected from weathering. OK so again why does the body of the Sphinx, the outer walls of it's enclosure and the wall the temple butts up against all show similar weathering while also being buried?

This is a strong argument for the Sphinx being older that the given date and why it's head is in better shape [And proportionally smaller than the body] Some theorize the Sphinx to be much older than is suspected. One could argue that the pharaoh Khafra didn't carve the Sphinx while building the Second Pyramid at Giza in 2500 BC. Instead some suspect he re-carved an already existing statues head. [Which is why the head of the Sphinx is very Un-Egyptian like in it's head to body proportions] Could also explain the weathering either by sand or as some have speculated a much older and wetter period in the past.

It is fun to speculate