Blocks from Giza pyramid, found to be manmade

What book was it? Forbidden archeology? That said in Egypt their is a stone that says the blocks are made from dissolving limestone in water with plant juice or plants to make mud/cement? I can't remember but i think he tested it and found it to be true. I will have to read it again, but I have heard this "man made" claim before.

Every time i see the stones at Puma Punku, I think they are poured cement. I mean they found a way to soften the stone to a putty like state and then poured or packed it into molds.
Who knows?

ETA: Just seen the video, and I'm wondering if it is the same guy that did the 1st test i was talking about. He was French. And the plant juice I talked about is for the acid to help the limestone dissolve so I don't know who would of used it.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by LUXUS

Originally posted by buster2010



You don't build blocks as they dry. In your way of building the blocks would crumble under their own weight. How fast do you think a block weighing tons would take to cure? Just because it is in the desert it doesn't mean it will cure in just a couple of hours.

Who said anything about hours, we are talking month to years to complete each level of the pyramid. If you started forming the blocks at the base of this pyramid in a clockwise direction by the time you get back to the first block you cast over a year could have passes...again not hours, we are talking about months and years!

But they say they built the great pyramid in 14 to 20 years. I was just saying that this wouldn't be possible to do in this time frame. Not to mention there is no way they could have moved enough limestone dust up river by barges to keep up with the building of the pyramids.

So you prefer the official story which if you do the maths you end up having to lift a car sized block up the pyramid and into position every 3 minutes 24 hours a day for 20 years without break? That’s why people have to in their minds revert to either aliens or lost technology from Atlantis…because anyone with common sense will tell you that’s impossible, yet the Egyptologists cling to these fiction story’s they tell us.

Like the man said. Alien technology.

dry packing the millions of blocks used for the bulk of the building material of the mountain of rock
would free up stone masons to cut the granite blocks and facing material in the chambers

it would also free up specialized limestone masons to build up a supply of angled casing stones ...since the dry packed blocks were uniform in size

the dry packing would also allow for the square 6" shafts which angle out from the kings & queens chambers to the exterior


i like the reductionist line of thinking done by the doctor

reply to post by Hanslune


Well, it came from the same source no? just another piece of ancient Egypt, stored in a museum at least. You think it doesn't come from ancient Egypt?

Just the same seen holes before and smoothness in other ancient Egypt pieces.
So now you believe those holes are modern, while with other holes just drilled with simple drill methods by egyptians, yet they look very worn out/old. Of course it could be, but the worn out look of it, makes it look odd at least.
I have read and seen those core drills, so now I must read with the speculation, with the understanding, since they only could have simple tools, this should be the answer is true?
You don't see anything special/great about those ancient structures, they had all the time, but yet you also believe the great pyramids where build in just 20 years only? wow, a great believer you are?

Who is the great believer in what's being told is true?

If you are not open to other things, how can you be a scientist? to be a good scientist be always open for anything, or you block things out and then it's hard to discover something new- something what is not thought about before yet / making your own thoughts and not based from others? Of course you can be 100 times wrong then, but at least you can make a breakthrough then when not based from something ''old'' accepted, which is considered as 'true''. Sure, not being sure, is not really nice but why else you want to research things? It's like digging and digging, and even then not being sure you find what you are looking for. Like fishing, you never know what you catch!

But sure I'm kinda of a rebel, making my own way and thoughts.
I won't take something as true, untill proven, and not many things are proven / 100% sure. So I don't say I'm right, just that from what I see, can't be done with simple tools or ways. Which you do believe, which is ok I guess. And sure not saying Aliens, but sure there has to be always a middle way.
Sad part probaly, with some things we just can be never really sure. Which in a way is also something nice.

It's kinda like a relationship, even when your almost sure that this will last, just something happens and it's over.

Of course our discussion is futile, you believe something, I believe something. No way you can make me think otherwise, or you make me believing something else. No big deal but yea tiresome.

Originally posted by Ookie
Once again, I own a chunk off this pyramid. It is sitting before me. It has tons of delicate fossils in it. Sea creatures. These could not be in there if the rock had been ground up and then poured like concrete. It is limestone. Concrete is a form of limestone. But it is limestone that has first been heated then crushed to powder.

It is utterly impossible for this rock to have been man made. Period.

I do not understand why people wonder about how they built the pyramids. That was proven 30 years ago. There is no mystery there. At all. None.

You want a mystery? How did they move those stones at the temple of Baalbek? Those suckers were enormous and they stacked them like bricks. WTF?

the mixture is not in powder form, it contains chunks of limestone with the fossils in them. Even so that doesn't discount it still being done by the Anunnaki as I believe. The people who think the locals did it can't answer why, if it was so easy, did they stop doing it? Why not build bigger ones?

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by EvillerBob
What came first? Did they develop this technique first and then use it while building the pyramid? Or did they decide/start building the pyramid and then develop this technique?

If it was an existing technique at the time, it would seem likely that there would be other, older, smaller structures that were built using the technique.

My guess is since the materials existed at the time and were around in the sand then if the circumstances were right.. a simple rain storm could have clued them into the process.. if everything was in the right spot and got wet, simply reaching down and balling it up in your hands might be enough to clue you into it's properties.. I really do love this theory, it's the first one that actually makes sense and is well within the capabilities of the people during the time.. The Egyptians seemed to be a highly intelligent people.. I like to think of them in the "work smarter, not harder" mentality .. I simply can't picture thousands of them lugging a block or two at a time and hauling it across the dessert .. they seem like they would be too smart for that.. not only that but it would burn a LOT of energy.. a lot more than this method.. which means they would need a large abundance of food to feed those people..

If they built it like the Egyptologists are telling us the death rate from overwork would be outrageous, people would be dropping like fly’s.

reply to post by GunzCoty


I've met the guy from Forbidden Archeology a couple years ago. He's interesting. It's not that I don't believe a lot of the stuff archeologists say is true, it's that I think some of the stuff has been interpreted wrongly. Evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. Just because a bunch of people think their interpretation is correct doesn't mean it is. I would say that five times as many people in this world believe that Archeologists interpretation of the building of the pyramids and some of these structures is wrong. 99 percent of people who work construction think these archeologists must be nuts. Of course our opinions are irrelevant because we aren't trained to think a certain way

reply to post by rickymouse

maybe

Originally posted by PolyATS
If cast in place, would it be likely that two adjacent "blocks" would stick together? If there is no gap. Maybe they greased them?

But that is exactly how we see it, the gaps are so tight you can’t get a razorblade between the blocks. I think the way they did it was they would cast one block and leave a gap the same size as the block then cast another. A second team behind would fill in the gaps using the two sides of the blocks as part of the mould. Also lets remember the surface of these blocks that we see today has been sandblasted with dust storms and rain for thousands of years.

Originally posted by KoolerKing
reply to post by Power_Semi

 

Dude you have no idea what you are talking about. Save the insults and do some research.

To answer a multitude of comments in one go:

"Dude" I do know what I'm talking about, because I have done my reserach, and that's why I'm saying people who think an ancient civilisation were blessed with alien technology are idiots - you can thank Berlitz and his ilk for this continuous progression into stupidity.

BigFurryTexanDude - racism eh, the eternal cry of those who attempt to win an argument by default while offering no evidence or arguments that warrant a victory. I would say more but despise those who immediately bring out the racism card, even in the most ludicrous of circumstances like this, it's really worse than childish or purile, it's totally and completely pathetic.

To whoever it was who said I'm intelligent and arrogant, yes I'm very intelligent, get over it. I'm obviously more intelligent than all of you put together if you think aliens came down, gave the Egyptians some space tech., which they found no use for but lugging big bits of rock around and making statues with mens bodies and animal faces....

While still living in mud huts, starving when the crops failed, and not progressing from the bow and arrow, the horse as their main power source, or worshipping beetles for hundreds of years.

Anyone might think they were a bit unsophisticated, or even, like, an ancient civilisation "dudes".

reply to post by LUXUS


There are nice pictures from the pyramids, which for a part got a very smooth surface also with (smooth) knobs on it.
While just a couple meters further, you just see the same kinda stones, not smoothened out with many space between them/holes and so forth.

The knobs on the smooth stones are explained as being used for robes for transport, which of course doesn't make sence since they are not on the not smooth out stones.
Since of course you smooth things out later after being placed. When you smooth things out after, then you of course can see those very tight lines between stones afterwards.
But yea, how did they smooth it out/make it flat with no space between the stones..

Got some great pictures from it an other computer, sadly can't show it now. But few meters of pyramid very flat and as you said, smooth with not space between them and a few meters furthers, just rough stones with many space between them, wich stick out, compared with the flat part.

Strange thing in my eyes at least, that you can see the same in ancient Peru stone structures.
Also the same ''knobs'' on them!
Just basicly the same 'tech', but so far away from eachothers

Found this link, there you can see the very same stuff, the knobs and smoothned out and rough stones on the same wall (not finished?) in Peru and Egypt:
davidpratt.info...

reply to post by LUXUS


S + F
I've always thought they were casted instead of pulled and placed by Israelite slaves.

What about the stelae? sic.the washington mounument sized hunks of stone that lay still unlifted, (but three sides cut out of a single piece of stone, ) in an egyprian quarry somewhere....Ive seen pictures!
must be real........................

Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by Power_Semi

 

True, the Egyptians, couldn't make the most impressive buildings/statues and so on when they lived in mud houses, and armed with just bows. So what's your point?

But sure ''incredible super-duper technology'', I won't say that, just something we just only can speculate on and never be really sure of.

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

My point is that this thread, especially the title is one of shock and awe - BREAKING NEWS TYPE STUFF - THE PYRAMIDS ARE PROVED TO BE MAN_MADE!!!!!

Well what would you have expected from people who lived in mud huts?

The only people surprised are those who for some inane reason think that aliens came to Earth and built a load of buildings.

Maybe this is the problem. Instead of looking at the pyramids and saying "these were made by people who lived in mud huts, how might they have done it in the simplest way and a way that would be possible for them to achieve" and then finding the obvious and logical answer, what people like the ones on ATS say is:

"These can't have been made by people living in mud huts, they must have had help from.... ALIENS!!!"

Because they don't look at the structures and work out how the people known to live in the area at the time might have made them.

They look at them and think "if we were going to make these today we'd need blocks of stone, cranes, planes, blah" and snce they didn't have those they must have had some help from some people with advanced technology, which of course must have been aliens.

Hence my statement that people who think that must be morons or retards.

Just offhand, the quarries where the stone was hewn should be the mirror image of how many stone were used in the pyramid give or take a few....... don't you think? So if the amount of blocks in the pyramid are not close to the amount quarried somethings there to question with these theories

reply to post by stirling


Yeah, but those ones are still sitting there You notice nobody ever stood them up. Some high priced Engineer back then told them that it won't be a problem getting them into place. He probably lost his head.

reply to post by Plotus


We have no idea what the original quarry looked like. That won't work. It could have originally been a lot higher than it appears to have been.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The pyramids were built after a major disaster to withstand a future disaster they were predicting. The pyramids are arks. Maybe egyptologists mistranslted the statement 'afterlife' which could of just meant after the disaster, the flood or something catastrophic. The pyramid also came equipped with a disassembled ship and the right atmospheres and temperatures to preserve food, records, and humans.

The pyramids around the world are flood and earthquake proof as the proof is that they stand today after hundreds of storms, floods and earthquakes throughout the millennias.

Are you saying...the Egyptians were just...the ancient version of modern day PREPPERS?!?! lol Somebody go get Discovery Channel.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

I don't doubt the stones were poured, to me that only supports the alien intervention theory. If the locals were doing it with ease, why did they stop? How could they forget how to mix limestone?

Really? "This theory which is workable, practicable and entirely within the means, knowledge and ability of the locals to execute, is proof that aliens did it"?

Forgetting knowledge is nothing knew. The world is full of "folk remedies" that are not being passed down generationally any more. We are lucky that our current society documents so thoroughly and that medium is still available to us.

It's interesting to note that the information doesn't appear to be written down anywhere that we have found. Perhaps is was considered so obvious at the time that this was unnecessary or perhaps the priests wanted to introduce a little mystery for later generations - or even wanted to make sure rival nations didn't learn the secret. If, say, the upper classes wanted to keep this technique reserved for their own special use as a mark of standing, or even if it was just less convenient to use this method for smaller or domestic buildings, then the technique might not have been used for a while. Suddenly the generation with the knowledge and experience had passed. It might never have occured to later generations that the stone wasn't quarried so for later work they resorted to old-fashion carve 'n' move, never managing to rival the glory of the older pyramid. It's a bit of a win-win situation for the pharoah because noone could ever build a bigger, better monument to make his look insignificant. Maybe thatwas a reason to encourage "forgetting" the technique.

All pure speculation, of course.

Unusual but not, I would suggest, without precedent. More likely and realistic, I would further suggest, than saying it was because of aliens.