How they Built the Great Pyramid of Egypt

reply to post by SLAYER69




Awesome thread.

Star $ Flag

It has also been suggested that the Ancient Egyptians might have moved the stones with wind power, relying on kites and pulleys rather than huge numbers of people
This was a great thread SLAYER thanks for posting i love reading about ancient Egypt and the pyramids ~~cookie
S&F

This is frigging fantastic
An amazing read, thank you.

A logical and well writen piece, I have always said that we have underestamated our ancestors,they were just the same as we are today ( except they were physically. stronger than we are today) and didnt need aliens tobuild the marvelous and beautiful monuments the built

and yet, here in britain we still struggle to build something like wembly stadium on time, on budget without the steel structure in the roof collapsing half way through the build.

reply to post by SLAYER69

S+F, great thread,i never heard about them artifacts or the bent pyramid,fascinating stuff!

Sorry, but i aint smart enough to debate how they were built!

This thread makes me feel proud of being human. I always imagined the pyramids as complex for that time period as CERN is for our days. You think that in 10.000 years the humans will ask themselves if aliens came here and built that accelerator for us?

I always found this man's technique very interesting.

once again a very well written and presented thread
GOOD WORK!!!!

Now i for one think people were used in their creation but the reasons were of an off worldly sort.....jmo

but to show what just one man can move it is not beyond the realm of possibilty that men did build them under guidance.

reply to post by AstroBuzz


Sorry m8 hate when same thoughts happen at same time as another....must have been doing this at the same moment....

Nice research. The only problem we have is that Khufu didn't have any record that he built the Great Pyramid. He should be very proud of that accomplishment and will have no qualms putting in record that he is the builder of the Great Pyramid. But alas, there's no record of that.

reply to post by plube


Great minds think alike!

Hard to believe that all these civilizations never left ONE thing to tell us how they built these massive structures.

Originally posted by Danbones
no aliens?
whos the great big giant guy in the above hyro?
one of the giant aliens they keep on about, or a statue of one of the giant aliens?

edit on 19-3-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

could be the pharoe...drawn larger than the slaves to show his power and leadership over everyone else.

There is more wood still in the pyramid that they could carbon date.

In 1993 when they probed the shaft Rudolf Gantenbrink's robot camera saw more wood.

In this article its said that Dixons wood is probably a smaller portion of this same piece of wood.

The Importance of the Wooden Rod for Dating of the Great Pyramid

I immediately made contact with Dr. Neil Curtis in Aberdeen. The Grant relics and memorabilia sent by Mrs. Morice had not be classified but only stored in the Marischal Museum's vaults. Being understaffed and also in the process of refurbishing the Museum, Dr. Neil assured me that a search for the missing 5-inch measuring rod would be carried out, but warned me that this could take quite a while. I contacted Dr. Neil last on 14 June, but he had not been able to locate the missing rod with the Grant collection, but felt confident it was somewhere in the Museum, perhaps filed in a different section. He assured me that the search would go on.

It is extremely likely that the 5-inch piece found by Grant and Dixon in the northern shaft of the Queen's Chamber is, in fact, a fragment from a longer piece as was suggested by the Warden of Standards, Mr. Henry Williams Chrisholm back in 1873. We shall recall that when this shaft was re-explored by Rudolf Gantenbrink in 1993 (who was then working under Dr. Rainer Stadelmann of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo) he was able to see a wooden rod, measuring about 70 cm. long and having the same rectangular cross-sectional shape and general appearance than the smaller fragment found in 1872 by Grant and Dixon, lying deep inside the shaft. A photograph of this wooden rod taken by Gantenbrink's robotic camera showed fragments of white stone or plaster covering the part of rod that was pushed against the corner wall of the shaft. This may explain the "little small stones" encrusted in the smaller piece found by Grant and Dixon as described by Piazzi Smyth in his diary entry of the 26 November 1872.

But if this hypothesis is correct, then how did the smaller piece break off and fall down the shaft and come to rest where it was found by Dixon and Grant in 1872?

The northern shaft starts with a horizontal part which is about 2 meters long and then slopes upwards for a further 24 meters at an angle of 39 degrees. It is at the junction of the horizontal and sloping parts that Grant and Dixon found the small fragment. But could this piece have rolled down the whole length of the sloping shaft unaided? The answer is, in my opinion, probably not. This is because a small, square-shaped rod not smoothly planed cannot easily slide or roll on its own down the limestone flooring of the shaft and overcome the frictional resistance of the stone as well as the 20 or so masonry joints. When Gantenbrink explored this shaft, we were all surprised to note that a modern iron rod which had obviously been used to probe the shaft was still lying there, from somewhere about 7 meters up the sloping part of the shaft up to where the shaft bent towards the west. In none of the literature from Dixon, Grant or Piazzi Smyth is this iron rod mentioned. It is likely, however, that Grant and Dixon did, in fact, use this rod to probe the shaft but preferred not to report their 'treasure hunting' exploration, and that in probing the shaft so did cause the 5-inch fragment of the wooden rod to break off the longer piece and was pulled from its original resting place down to the bottom of the shaft by the iron rod.

At any rate, there can be no doubt that the wooden fragments viz. the small piece found by Grant and Dixon and the larger piece still in the shaft photographed by Gantenbrink, are contemporaneous with the construction of the Great Pyramid, since the shaft was sealed at both ends and not opened till 1872 by Dixon and Grant. These wooden fragments, therefore, could prove extremely useful in defining a more accurate date for the monument by the Carbon-14 method. Retrieving either or both pieces is thus of great importance to the study of this monument. The matter now rests in the hands of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities in Cairo and the Marischal Museum in Scotland

robertbauval.co.uk...


If only we could get the wood that still in there then it doesn't matter about that missing little dixon fragment(which I suppose people could also argue is a fake if it doesn't agree with their views because its been lost track of for so long). I would really love to see the results of dating on this wood, I think wood is very suitable for such dating and surely many many samples could be taken from it and dated to reduce error (who's gonna care if its a little damaged, it wouldn't be like cutting up the shroud of turin).

Great opening photo! Another well thought and descriptive thread. Like you,Slayer, I have marveled at the intricacies and complexity of ancient monuments like the Pyramids, Stonehenge, monuments in Latin America, and other regions of the world since I was a kid. Some things defy logic in our understanding of how humanity could have pulled off such brilliance without out modern tools and equipment. There are many theories about how it was done, but nothing of anything has been put forward to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt what techniques were used, who designed them, their purpose, or other areas of intrigue.

Perhaps, we can continue digging at these sites for future discoveries, and that should get a little easier in the case of Egypt since the dictator of antiquities, Zahi Hawass, has resigned. All we have found is circumstantial evidence, but none of the crucial glue needed to form a conclusion. As you have said in your OP Slayer, it is a puzzle within a puzzle. I will give early man credit for building the pyramids until I see something otherwise.

As for the ancient astronauts theory, it is an interesting yarn, and I love science fiction. However, until some archaeologist discovers mummified extra-terrestrials or ancient texts describing relationships with entities from the stars, or other evidence backing up that theory; I will remain a skeptic. The theories proposed in the OP seem logical and practical, but there are countless other theories to mull over as well. Perhaps, the Great Pyramid will forever guard her secrets from the world, and maybe that is a good thing? At least until a smoking gun is discovered, we can continue to marvel at its awesomeness for what it is, and that is a mysterious architectural wonder of the world. Besides, if there are no unknowns, the world would become a dull place with nothing to talk about.

I found this website most interesting: www.geopolymer.org...

I used to believe that their were no hieroglyphics on the Pyramids, perhaps I still do, but this stone they found seems to describe building methods.

Why would they write thousands of things about lifestyle, but not write substantially about building the largest things on Earth at the time?

I find that bizarre.

They were no slave in egypt

the men ( and women ) who build the pyramid where not slave

this was an other era : this was not capitalism, and they were not slave


they were paid

this is far different for the currend point of view about work

work that as in fact disapeared

happy new year : year 0
new world order

reply to post by SLAYER69



nice one again slayer!

what are your thoughts on the limestone covering and "gold" cap it was supposed to have? (or do i have the wrong one)

seems to me like, that stuff would take more time to finish and a little more complicated scaffolding.

i think that was shook off in an eq sometime ago and used for building, in town.

this was built on bedrock, right? that took some doing also. am i correct?

wouldn't they had to know that? to support the weight?

which opens up another area of expertise too.

great stuff guy! s+f!

Awesome Thread!

reply to post by SLAYER69


First of all i must say, that you have done a very very well job on this post. Great information all in all.

I myself have also been working on this subject,together with one of the greatest historians\archaeologists per today. We also made a show on Discovery Channel and History channel,wich you probably have seen. So then you know that we also sent out a entire crew with per today machines to build the pyramids ourselves,with ofc the information we have regarding the egyptian build methods.

We failed.The ancient pyramids has stones that weigh up to 1000 TONS.When our machines tried to lift it,it broke down.

Short told,Yes the egyptians really did a great job working on the pyramids. But they had help.

I cant tell you more then this, but you have probably enough information to actually come up with an logical answer

Other than that,i must say you did a better job on this subject then i have seen in many books