Blocks from Giza pyramid, found to be manmade

Originally posted by esteay812
Very interesting, I have a question though, if it has not already been addressed...

Figures were given about the time require to place and set each block into position in order to finish by a certain deadline. I believe it were something like 1 block every minute, every hour, every day, for 20 years. I may be wrong about that, but I believe that is what I recall reading.

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?

I will continue to read through the pages here, and look for the answer. That's one of the biggest issues I have in believing this method was preferred and indeed used to construct the pyramids.

I was so impressed with the required speed of installation each block demands in order to complete the structure within the life span of the Pharoah, which it was built for, that I could hardly believe it possible. It seems an even more impressive that these blocks could be poured and cured, in place, faster than the time frame proposed for quarried stone construction.

i think it should be asked how many people are these numbers using.
i mean what is it 100? 200? 500? a thousand? 2 thousand? 5? 10? 100?
if it is a small number it is questionable, but judging from the egyptian culture it sounds like it was in the 10's of thousands and given it was a form of worship and civic duty it could have been closer to hundreds of thousands.

i see people saying it is impossible because of how fast they would need to go but they don't even know how many people helped build the thing,. it almost seems like people are framing it in modern numbers, but we don't use large numbers to build things, they did.

as for the casting of stones? no one has shown they are cast, only that a single person claims it and people are jumping to the conclusion that he is right out of wishful thinking.
there is plenty of evidence that stone was quarried, but nothing to show that they were cast. the logical mind would believe the evidence over claims unbacked by evidence.

reply to post by Geoneo99


Probably. You sharpen iron with more iron. lol.

This idea overall is not at all far fetched or impractical.

We have an example of it here in the american southwest.

Just look at the adobe structures built in the side of mountains by the indians.

They took natural materials, make them into bricks (their version of "concrete) and made structures that are over a hundred years old and still there today.

Or even more recent go to your local (example only) menards.

You can see counters made up of natural carved stone (granite and quartz) or man made manufactured stone such as corian.

The natural one has to be carved, shaped, heavy and takes alot of time for something custom if you want it.

Whereas corian can be made to order, colored, and to you in half the time of going out to mine the natural stone.

Now ramp this up to something like constructing a bathroom. You can use slabs of stone but they are heavy, labor intensive (requiring extra manpower and equipment) and harder to work with. That is why smaller tiles are used.

Now these are very small examples of stone work as compared to the pyramids.

When you sit down and logically take into account we today have access to massive machines with extremely efficient cutting technology and choose for massive building projects to use man made stones (concrete and bricks for example) for the ease and speed.

It does directly challenge the idea that the egyptians with VERY LIMITED technology (muscle power with ropes and tackle, bronze tools) were able to build MASSIVE structures/pyramids at a speed that would be at least as fast as today.

Even if you accept they could house, feed, cloth, sanitation, ect thousands of workers it defies common sense
they carved, moved and placed each stone.

Why given the PROVEN fact romans had a "concrete" technology that we still hold on to the dogma of the cut stone/manpower theory of the pyramids?

Maybe the reason we are not to the stars is we continue to listen to "experts" instead of learning from the past as to build on the previous knowlege of our elders.

In conclusion think of this saying I came up with.

You will never make a jet engine if you keep reinventing the wheel.

Originally posted by matted
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

Not so far fetched as you may think.

Just look up the history of the hoover dam.

They had to keep building and poring concrete for each layer as the previous one was drying.

It is truly a remarkable achievement both on scale and speed.

Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by josephamccoy

 

At least for the granite quarries we could see the stones where just cut out in 1 piece.


Same as in Peru?

How in the hell could they do this for example:

Don't think we could that even today?

Basicly the same thing with ancient Egyptian granite stone work:

But yea some things we only have left overs and speculation left sadly..

edit on 11-6-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

Well probably the same way this was done.

www.flickr.com...

I have watched apprentice stonemasons carve stone like this using the old tools of their trade.

Just because you or I cant do it or work out how something was done doesn't mean others couldn't.

Many people on here dont give enough credit to what could be done by our ancestors then jump to the alien conclusion!

Only prob is...
THERE IS A BIG FAT EMPTY QUARRY WITH SLIPWAYS/CHANNELS FOR MOVING STONE

Mokkatam Formation is the most likely site for the quarry.....Was I yelling? sorry....ancient aliens, and older civilization disciples, take a wee walk with me through the Giza site.

Lookie here:

The estimated volumes for Khufu’s pyramid and the missing stone cut out from the quarry are:
Volume cubic meters
Khufu pyramid 2,590,000
Khufu quarry 2,760,000

BOING...WHAT? You mean they cut out the approx same amount of rock (taking into account rubble and channels)then created triple the work , by creating a process to make stone out of already cut stone blocks? They crushed it up, then made uneven blocks out of it through alchemy, had to wait for it to dry, ALL to make stone blocks that were already cut stone blocks?....that would make them super stupid if they did it that way don't you think?

The faux limestone theory is a admirable guess, but it isnt supported by the evidence sadly.

read below

Quarry channel

The ancient quarrymen began removing stone by cutting channels the size of hotel corridors to isolate big blocks of bedrock.

When they isolated the desired-size block, they would insert levers as big as railroad ties into sockets along the underside and then pry the stone free from the bedrock. Once the stone was free they would drag it away. You can still see some of their channels and lever sockets.

Massive amounts of limestone, sand, tafla (desert clay), and gypsum debris now fill the center of the quarry. Lehner speculates this material might be remnants of the pyramid construction ramps, which the workers removed and dumped back into the quarry to fill it at the end of the project. The largest blocks of bedrock, isolated by channels, still exist between the main quarry and the Sphinx to the east. Here you can see, roughed out of the bedrock but still attached, a 50-100 ton block ....

In the quarry basin, which the builders exploited deeper into the bedrock, you can see channels and a stepped face that indicate where the ancient workmen cut the smaller pyramid-sized blocks in a one to two-ton range.

www.aeraweb.org...

Find ancient building techniques fascinating - particularly Polygonal Masonary, which appears to be completely earthquake proof.

Very interesting video from Brian Forrester looking at the different building constructions in Cuzco South America and how you can tell which is Inca, Spanish & Pre Columbian.

reply to post by Hanslune

They may have used both methods, first the hard way until they discovered the easy way. In the UK we used to build houses from stacking rough cut stone, we don’t anymore because we discovered an easier way called the brick.

You cant dismiss the microscopic examination of those blocks, if it is true that they are structurally different from natural cut limestone block someone needs to explain how the structure changed!

The image you post of a ship is clearly carrying an obelisk which were made from granite not limestone. No one is saying that they did not cut granite blocks.

Like I said before it would be interesting if the more perfect pyramids were found to be constructed from cast blocks whilst the less perfect ones were found to be made from genuine cut limestone blocks. We also might find pyramids that started with cut blocks and then reverted to cast block when they realised how tough it was moving those huge blocks.

Another thing I have noticed, you keep insisting that the limestone had to be quarried and crushed which is labour intensive…the video however clearly states that the limestone is loos bound to the surface in areas. You would not need to quarry it, you just scrape it up and use it as it is!

Also we know the Egyptians were making fake turquoise stone so we know that they had this knowledge!

Personally I am of the opinion that even with this faster method it would be almost impossible to construct that pyramid in the said 14-20 years Egyptologists are clinging to!

reply to post by LUXUS


so the remaining cut blocks left behind in the quarry were cut for show?
They faked the block scaring in the quarry to leave the illusion that they cut stone blocks, but really used scrapping?

There is the workers metropolis with bakehouses etc and the remains of a vast workforce, wouldn't we also have these large kilns, or square boxes left somewhere for that level of activity?

Originally posted by Harte

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

edit on 6/12/2012 by Harte because: (no reason given)

That’s easy, you cast a block then you leave a gap the length of a block and repeat. When those cure you use the sides of the cast blocks as part of the mould to fill in the gap i.e. you just put boards on the faces and no need for boards on the sides. As for boards underneath the blocks...you don’t need them.

reply to post by LUXUS

That’s easy, you cast a block then you leave a gap the length of a block and repeat. When those cure you use the sides of the cast blocks as part of the mould to fill in the gap i.e. you just put boards on the faces and no need for boards on the sides. As for boards underneath the blocks...you don’t need them.

LUXUS you aren't looking at and considering all the evidence. There is mortar between the blocks so that counters your argument above.
Additionally, there is a entire quarry as proof of cut stone as evidence and no remains of faux limestone production.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by LUXUS

That’s easy, you cast a block then you leave a gap the length of a block and repeat. When those cure you use the sides of the cast blocks as part of the mould to fill in the gap i.e. you just put boards on the faces and no need for boards on the sides. As for boards underneath the blocks...you don’t need them.

LUXUS you aren't looking at and considering all the evidence, which is a shame.There is mortar between the blocks so that counters your argument above.
Additionally, there is a entire quarry as proof of cut stone as evidence and no remains of faux limestone production.

edit on 13-6-2012 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

If there is no evidence of faux (manmade) limestone blocks what would you call the microscopic examination of the blocks which states that they are structurally different to natural cut limestone?

Secondly if these cast blocks are visually indistinguishable from natural cut limestone blocks people would be unaware of the evidence even if it was in front of them.

As I said before they probably used both methods so that’s your quarry’s solved. Why did they leave those blocks in the quarry? probably because once they discovered a simpler method they completely abandoned the harder method!

I have actually moved a metric ton bag of sand with the help of friends so I know how impossible it must be to lift and position a 2 ton block to the top of a pyramid every 3 minutes….there is no practically minded person who could agree with what these Egyptologists are claiming!

Originally posted by LUXUS

I have actually moved a metric ton bag of sand with the help of friends so I know how impossible it must be to lift and position a 2 ton block to the top of a pyramid every 3 minutes….there is no practically minded person who could agree with what these Egyptologists are claiming!

One team couldn't do that, but 20 teams could be moving 20 blocks an hour.

I quite like the suggestion that they started off with natural rock and then moved to manmade blocks when they realisd it would be easier - or maybe there was always a plan to make it this way. I have no proof or evidence of this, other than I like the idea.

Originally posted by LUXUS

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.

if we could roll one of the GP blocks over and see if the contours match the lower surface and sides of the blocks it was cast against then that would be one thing but if we rolled it and saw a smooth surface as if it was cast separately then that would say something else. I think it's worth investigating further, we shouldn't say "game over" at this point. There's more to look for.

Well, I think a majority of the stone was Quarried but some stone was probably formed and poured. As far as there being mortar joints, there would be up to half inch gaps if they poured these things in place using other stones as side forms. I've worked a lot with concrete and claybased concrete would be no different I suspect. Shrinkage occurs when any concrete product dries, the bigger the piece the more shrinkage.

I believe a lot of the archeological information but other things I cannot see. I know that they could quarry these blocks if they had steel tools. Sure you could use rock tools on a small basis and a few blocks but mankind is intelligent. He would have quickly improved the techniques in a few years even back then. Another thing I don't like in archeology and anthropology is their discounting of evidence that contradicts their present knowledge and perspective in their field. They won't test things or test with a negative attitude trying to disprove things that challenge their thinking. This is a normal human trait though and I guess these guys and gals are human so what the hell. I am not limited by their limitations though. I know all kinds of construction and the capabilities of people. People have been using tools for many thousands of years and recycled any metals they could find till nothing was left. Any evidence would be long gone, melted down and turned into weapons or other tools by future generations. That is the reason we can't find evidence. Just because we can't find metal tools is not a reason to say they didn't exist. People don't see things they feel is not relevent. They walk right by and say it is from a newer era because that is what they are taught to do.

Hopefully things will change in the future about the flaw in these fields. The Archeologist agencies are aware of this but it is hard to change consensus of the members to see their flaws. I may not know much about Archeology but I know cement, stone, construction, and carpentry. I know art and something crafted by man pretty well now. I was trained by Italians in stone,brick, block, and tile work. I saw their terrazzo work but I did not work with that myself. I know that the Italians have been doing stone work for thousands of years, so long that it must be imprinted in their DNA. Some people are just natural at things. Ask an old quarry worker what he thinks of the pyramids, not an archeologist. Don't discount half the conversation to make it fit into what you perceive and the truth may be found. Intelligent people always force evidence into their own perspective without realizing they are doing it.

Originally posted by LUXUS
I have actually moved a metric ton bag of sand with the help of friends so I know how impossible

Sorry, but the only thing moving a large weight around with your mates gives you insight into is....moving a large weight around with some mates.

This is like saying that you once tried to carve a block of stone and it took you ages and ended up looking rubbish: Therefore it's impossible that people built all the cathedrals of Europe. This is just an argument from incredulity - just because you can't work out how to do it, doesn't mean they couldn't.

Perhaps if you got a few thousand friends and then found a bunch of building project managers and monumental masons, who had been trained since early childhood for this exactly this work, you might have some insight.

That's what you forget - the people who organised the pyramids would likely to have been apprenticed from birth - their life would have just one long training session working under Masters until they were ready to take over themselves. The construction would have been years in the planning - it wasn't just some blokes mucking about. They were building for a God, no less!

it must be to lift and position a 2 ton block to the top of a pyramid every 3 minutes….there is no practically minded person who could agree with what these Egyptologists are claiming!

They didn't all get one block, run to the top of the pyramid with it, go back down grab another one and repeat. Any "practically minded" person would realise that. By the way, do you seriously suggest that the archaeologists and other specialists who spend life times out field are less practically minded than someone sat at home with Google? That shows a certain arrogance.

It was a production line - the blocks could have formed a continuous moving line from the quarry - at full tilt they would have been laying far more than 1 every 3 minutes - they could be putting several down simultaneously.

Personally, I would say quarrying a block of stone then shoving it on top of the other blocks is going to be far quicker and simpler than the poured concrete suggestion, which would have been a logistical nightmare.

reply to post by FatherLukeDuke


The word “Ton” or “Metric ton” means nothing to most of you, 1 ton, 2 ton , 50 ton ,80 ton…just pretty words to a person who hasn’t actually tried to move a ton block.

That’s why for the non practical person moving 2 ton blocks every 3 minutes is perfectly achievable because for them its just words like:

1 ton,

20 ton,

100 ton

For anyone who has actually worked in construction (I Have) its ridiculous and stupid!

You can only really appreciate what that word means if you have directly experienced it, this is the difference between those who dream up these things vs. those who have actually done these things.

I actually remember this office worker once asked me if I could lift a half ton block because it was blocking his car, he actually expected me to just pick it up and move it. Even when I explained to him it weighed over half a ton and I could not just lift it I could see in his eyes that he simply could not understand, it was outside his world of experience.

Originally posted by matted
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

Had you read Davidovits' book, you would know that the core blocks contain air bubbles, hair, plant fibers, and rock aggregate, none of which are found in the tura limestone used for the casing stones. As to the drying time, go read up on the building of Hoover Dam.

Originally posted by Geoneo99

Yeah, sure

And those diorite vases were shaped with diorite stones aswell...

[


No quartz sand

edit on 13/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by thetiler
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.

Unfortunately he has been shown to be very wrong about the impressions made in stone, his other ideas, while fanciful have no backing or evidence to support them