Blocks from Giza pyramid, found to be manmade

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by LUXUS

 

from what you can see in the video there really wasn't a crisp clean joint like you see at the GP. I'm not saying it wasn't poured, just saying they haven't replicated the edges in the GP stones. that tells me the French guy is missing something. Also I wonder if the French blocks are as dense as the Giza ones.

I have cast things like this before so I know that there is a crisp joint, what you see in the video is only a surface crust of perhaps a few millimetres thick. A bit of weathering and what will be left is a clear line of separation between the blocks.

It is well known and widely acknowledged that ancient civilizations used mud and straw to make clay bricks.

It is not unreasonable to assume that they attempted making similar building materials out of different substances. I would not be surprised at all, to find that many cultures discovered how to make blocks of material that was poured and cured.

In fact I would be more surprised if they didn't discover these kind of techniques. It is still a very labor intensive process. And is only useful in certain applications. So it also makes sense that these techniques were only used in large scale projects

ETA:

During the quarry process. It has been suggested that water and heat was used to fracture stones. During that process the dust from the material being quarried would have inadvertently become wet. Over a short period of time the quarry men would have noticed this material as it dried. Perhaps this is one way the process could have been discovered.

Oh well, so they could make better cement back in the old days before capitalism got hold of it and death dated everything. I'm sure we probably tell better jokes now adays.

Wow, so it's proposed to be composed of a limestone concrete of sorts, cast in place, that would eliminate hauling huge blocks, just pour wetted smaller rock powder and pieces into a mold then let it harden in place, ingenious if true.

Originally posted by bigrex
Wow, so it's proposed to be composed of a limestone concrete of sorts, cast in place, that would eliminate hauling huge blocks, just pour wetted smaller rock powder and pieces into a mold then let it harden in place, ingenious if true.

edit on 12-6-2012 by bigrex because: (no reason given)

The problem is where do you get the powder?

The AE did use mortar made of gypsum, if they had concrete why did they use gypsum?

I would suggest you guys do two things, go look at the quarries, where you will see the blocks....like this





Then wander over and look at the core stones





...and if they were using 'concrete' why did they ship stones whole?

Originally posted by Hanslune


...granite was generally shaped by bashing it with diorite hammer stones

Yeah, sure
And those diorite vases were shaped with diorite stones aswell... [

I have a problems with this theory , wouldn't it take a very long time to dry these blocks? and even after placed together , they would take even longer to dry once placed along another
drying on the outside of each block then the center of the block would take longer if placed on top, beside all around of each other still drying block. where did the all this moisture go ? if the blocks are so close ? air tight yes ? and in the drying of these blocks there is no cracks.

the other is that they were able to use the exact same mixture every time? how many blocks are there? 2 million and they are all the same hmm.. and in all that time no one placed anything inside of them ? or no wood or other items such as hair from the workers, or any other tools that were used in the construction of them

the vid said with little to no effort to pound these block into shape , but yet beating down was looking hard

But they were built for aliens!

Mystery solved to me.

Originally posted by esteay812

My question would then be... If the blocks were formed using this process, would it be possible to manufacture each block, remove the forms, and once it had sufficiently cured begin the process for the next block, efficiently enough to match the specific time frame alotted for the construction of the pyramid?

How quickly would each block need to be produced, set, and repeated in order to make constructing the pyramid with this technology the most probable construction process?

Good questions.

Here's more.

1) If the pyramid stones were poured in place, how'd they get the mortar between them?
2) If the pyramid stones were poured in place, how'd they get the bottom of the form out from under each block?
3) If the pyramid stones were poured in place, why are they all different sizes?

What, they could dream up geopolymers, but couldn't conceive of the advantages inherent in using collections of the same-sized forms? They made brand-new forms for every layer?

Right.

Harte

reply to post by Harte
There's the huge problem of 'shuttering' that we use in construction. They can't be waiting on one shuttered block to 'go off' before they 'pour' the other. Not to mention, they'd need a heck of a lot timber props and boarding at a time when they didn't have plywood and not much softwoods either.

Instead of folk arguing that the pyramid took decades, they'd have been needing loads of decades. Minimum 3 days per block for drying out (going off). Lot of down time for the work-force...

reply to post by Harte


Some of the parts were poured in place or manufactured on some pyramids. On the Giza pyramids have the facestones been taken off and reused on other buildings in the area?

Brilliant and inspiring, really. Whoever made them, we could learn a lot from them. I'm fairly confident that someone or some group on earth knows exactly what happened back then but isn't telling us because it's a Truth that would expose modern society (and possibly religion) as completely ridiculous and corrupt and destabilize it, but maybe I just have a "conspiracist" mind-set. In any case, it seems a secret that should by all means be incredibly difficult to keep. It's not like it's a small issue, the answer to where those pyramids came from and how they were built have massive implications on modern society whether aliens were involved or not, and the more advanced the technology used the more important the answer, because, well, where did this advanced civilization (and their technology) go?

One day we'll work it all out, I'm hopeful. We've made incredible progress in the past few decades, considering the hurdles and resistance these scientists and archaeologists often meet when they suggest theories that aren't History Textbook verbatim. I don't know how any of them get anything done at all really, considering the Establishment's red tape they've gotta wade through.

People assume we're the most advanced civilization because we all have computers with hardcore graphics and iphones with apps that can order pizza, but in reality we're so far from civilized it's a joke. The civilization that built those pyramids made things to last, and last a long time. Our computers and iphones and other items last until the warranty runs out and then we chuck em and buy new ones. Then enter religious indifference, politics, nationalism, racism etc. etc. etc... and we call ourselves advanced!? Are we blind, stupid or both? Or, god-forbid, correct? I dread the thought that we're the most advanced civilization that earth (or the Universe) has to offer

If this is it, I'm not very impressed. Earth won't look too good on your interdimensional résumé, god. I'm still (perhaps foolishly) hoping that this is all just the birth-pang precursor to what an advanced civilization is really like, and not the final draft. Time will tell.

Peace

I like the science here. An electron microscope should definitively identify the difference between a limestone block that was built up amorphously vs mixed together all at once. Natural limestone does not just "happen", as it is a sedimentation of organic material that falls to the ocean floor and has layering cycles.

I just wonder why it took so long do get a definitive answer on this, if this is indeed definitive. If there is no micro layering of material, showing a cross section of build up over time, then the only way it could be made is by a man-made mix, IMHO.

If this turns out to be a proven fact, which takes collaboration from peers, then it may shed new light on to the purpose of some of the chambers, especially in the great pyramid. Considering the Grand Gallery, could it have been used to somehow elevate crushed limestone to the upper levels of the pyramid as it was being constructed? It has notched walls like you could imagine a ratchet type mechanism being used to elevate the powdered limestone so it cannot slip back downward, or perhaps it was part of a molding machine..... Very Interesting development and thanks OP for the thread. S+F

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Harte

 

There's the huge problem of 'shuttering' that we use in construction. They can't be waiting on one shuttered block to 'go off' before they 'pour' the other. Not to mention, they'd need a heck of a lot timber props and boarding at a time when they didn't have plywood and not much softwoods either.

Instead of folk arguing that the pyramid took decades, they'd have been needing loads of decades. Minimum 3 days per block for drying out (going off). Lot of down time for the work-force...

That is interesting. Perhaps they worked the progressive top surfaces piecemeal, like hundreds of starting places and kept up some form of rotation to keep the workflow as active as possible. This new theory extends many possibilities and also puts the feasibility firmly in the hands of man.

The best theory I've ever run across is Chris Dunn's theory of the Giza Power plant and his explanation of the swirl marks on the granite. He has some great ideas and have said so for quite some time. And his theories still hold a lot of weight and are revolutionary amongst mainstream scholars.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Hiya Hans, you might as well step away from the thread and leave it to run its course.

Davidovits has been busy over in Bosnia and you'll never guess what he found in that imaginary pyramid?

Have a guess.

More poured blocks.

Seems like he finds them everywhere. His evidence was refuted point-for-point by Dipyan Jana in this presentation. Jana's a PhD scientist and commercial engineer whose specialisation is microscopy of concrete and rock.

Then again, what does an expert have to offer?

Be VERY CAREFUL about putting blind faith in ANY EXPERT.

One they are bound by the limits of their training and (unfortunely) their indoctrination (as in one psychologist believes in young and one in freud). An excellent example is when scientist thought that the smallest particles were electrons, protons and neurons and now we have the study of quarks.

The second is a practical example of "experts" saying one thing and being PROVEN WRONG is the humble bumblebee.

Up to about 10 years ago (or so) according to all the experts in aeronautics that something with the wing size in conparison to structure type/size, wing load, thrust potential, ect that a device designed just like a bumblebee COULD NOT FLY.

Well someone forgot to tell the bumblebee that and as PROOF that they were wrong one just has to go outside and see one (or more) fly around.

It litterally took decades for "experts" to come up with (IMO a face saving) saying they "discovered after all these years (decades if one wants to be accurate)" the bumblebee had a split wing allowing more lift.

So when you say "experts say this, case closed" just remember the good old bumblebee.

Or if you REALLY NEED another example remember it was "scientists" that insisted the earth was flat, the sound barrier was unbreakable, gumans could not break the 4 minute mile, ect ect ect

Originally posted by frugal
I don't believe the pyramids are concrete blocks. Concrete cracks. All Concrete cracks rather rapidly too. All the pressure of the concrete on top of concrete with earthquakes and compression, the concrete blocks would eventually desintegrate. Nature makes things more perfectly than man made. Stone lasts longer.

My relative was killed changing a tire on a hay cart using a concrete cinder block which desintegrated and the cart smashed him. Concrete is not that strong.

edit on 12-6-2012 by frugal because: (no reason given)

Actually that statement is very incorrect.

It all depends on how the "concrete" was made, the aggragate used, elements/binders/ect used to take into account local conditions, and other factors where the structure is.

For example there are building built of concrete in germany during the Nazi's that have been bombed by the allies all though the war that are STILL in good usable condition today.

Or castles in europe that (while alot are not prestine) still exist after hundreds of years.

Also stop taking the term "concrete" so literally people.

It is using the term "concrete" as an analogy of mixing elements together to form a stone like structure.

An american example of this is the indians of the southwest. There are mud bricks structures that still are there today and are at least 200 years old plus.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by dogstar23

 

Wow. Now here we have an example of someone going to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I imagine years from now, an SR71 blackbird will be unearthed fully intact and operational and someone will say, "its just a glob of metal."

So, are you saying that the pyramids can fly?

What kind of half-[snip]ed argumentative tactic are you using, anyway?

Would you like to point out the "Practical Application" of this giant pile of rocks? Or just make childish assertions?

I see sir that you rather attack the previous poster that be an adult and understand the simple idea of "metaphor".

Let me break it down to you to a more simpler way for you.

Sometime in say a 1000 years from now people would find a SR71 and compare it to the starships of their time.

They may have Warp technology for interstellar travel and have developed anti gravity for flight in atmosphere using an element that negates needing fossil fuel for power. Also the term MACH speeds will be considered slow and have no meaning to them.

To them our most advance plane of our current time would be just a hunk of antique metal and be considered 'primitive", "quaint", and "so simple".

Does this break it down for you or are you just gonna call me names and/or use down right ignorant comparisons like "pyramids can fly" comments.

reply to post by mblahnikluver


Actually they do. In fact, scans reveal the presence of past platforms for where the cranes and ramps went:

A small open notch on the outer façade of the pyramid, about 90 metres above the ground, is the main building block of Houdin’s pyramid theory. It has been previously noted by pyramid experts, but never considered of great significance. To the French architect, it's vital to proving how the ancient Egyptian builders managed to turn the great stone blocks, as they gradually shoved them up the internal ramp. In 2008, Brier and a National Geographic camera crew – together with an expert mountaineer – climbed up to the notch, squeezed inside and entered a narrow L-shaped room, which was exactly where Houdin had predicted it would be. It was in hollow corner sections such as this, he claims, that the pyramid builders spun the blocks 90° – for the ascent of the next side – using a crane

Further support for Houdin's theory had landed in his lap by chance in 2000, after a member of a French team who had surveyed the Great Pyramid in 1986 caught a presentation by the architect at a scientific conference. He shared two exciting bits of information with Houdin – firstly, that during their surveying of the pyramid, his team had been shocked to spot a desert fox in a hole next to the 90 metre-high notch. Short of scaling the steep face of the pyramid, how else could it have got there, other than by navigating some kind of internal passageway that led from the bottom of the monument up?

Even more vitally, the French surveyor presented to Houdin a microgravimetry scan of the pyramid – a measurement of the density of different sections of the pyramid that they had applied in order to try and detect hidden chambers. They hadn’t found any, but the scan did show up a baffling pattern – a hollow that appears to spiral its way up the inside of the pyramid. They had originally written-off it as inconsequential, but to Houdin this was critical proof of his hypothesis.

heritage-key.com...



"Every age reinvents the pyramid's purposes and meaning," Romer adds. "We end up ignoring the real achievement of these people."

www.usatoday.com...