[ninjadude]

There is considerable difference between concrete blocks and those in the GP. It's fun to speculate but the evidence does not show this BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE BLOCKS. They are cut stones not poured concrete. Fringers get all "ooh how can they place blocks next to each other so that even a credit card cannot be inserted" BS. We hear this from every megolithic structure from all over the world by the "believers". BS. Blocks can be worked side by side and shaped. What mortar that was used and the application of thousands of years has made the bond even tighter in places that have not been ravaged people. It's impressive. But not unbelievable.

[cladking]

"Few reliefs on the walls of temples or tombs depict the building of any monument from any point in pharaonic history. Of most examples that do show construction projects, we usually can't even be sure if they're depicting an actual monument under construction or merely the ideal of a monument under construction."

The builders said that the Gods built the pyramids.

The builders didn't depict their Gods as they actually
appeared. It was against their religion. The Gods were
always depicted in an anthropomorphized form and usually
with animal heads, torsos/ legs, or both.

You say they didn't depict building but I maintain that
they did. Qoais posted a very nice bull resting its head
on a djed full of water. Then there are the depictions of
Osiris standing in a djed.

The Gods built the pyramids. And the builders said they
were not tombs.

[kmt_sesh]

All good points, ninjadude. The article to which I had hoped to link us in my previous post (the one dumped by Yahoo) was a scientific examination of the fossil content of the masonry. It precisely mirrors that found within the limestone substrata of the Plateau. The masonry can be chemically tied to the limestone of the Plateau, too. So unless the entire Giza Plateau consists of poured concrete instead of limestone, I don't think we need to suspect that the Great Pyramid was made of concrete blocks.

Besides, how would one explain the huge quarries that had been cut to build all three pyramids?

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 06 November 2009 - 11:58 PM, said:

The builders said that the Gods built the pyramids...

LOL You keep saying that, cladking, but repetition doesn't make it so. The builders said no such thing. The Pyramid Texts record that, but the builders had nothing to do with the Pyramid Texts. Maybe one in ten of the workmen was literate, and that one percent would constitute foremen or other "middle-management" types. The Pyramid Texts were composed by literate priests and inscribed in the later pyramids by royal craftsmen, many more of whom probably were literate to some extent.

[questionmark]

kmt_sesh, on 07 November 2009 - 08:03 AM, said:

Besides, how would one explain the huge quarries that had been cut to build all three pyramids?

Them ain't no quarries, thas the garage for Lord Enkie's flying saucer!

[Qoais]

kmt, I think you posted that article in the do you believe aliens made humans thread. It would be quite a ways back by now.

I was kind of upset at the time because professor Davidovits spent a lot of time and effort in researching what he thought was legitimate samples and from those samples found that the nummolites were not laying in-strata as they would be if the blocks had been cut from the bedrock, but instead, found that the nummolites were all "mixed-up" as they would be if the AE's were using a re-constituted product. Another team (the ones you posted about) had been given legitimate samples of some of the blocks and found the nummolites layered, not mixed. I think it was then Prof. Barsoum or possibly an assistant of Prof. Davidovits that suggested some of the blocks were cut and some were poured. And unless we can have an example from each block in each layer, I think we cannot say one way or the other. It would certainly make it easier to carrier the wet product upwards, as I've said, like a human chain, passing the buckets along from person to person, would negate ramps to the higher portions, other than just ramps from one layer to the next, and even then, if they were passing the buckets up, to someone standing on the next level, perhaps they could do that without a ramp. They could have had short poles with hooks on the end that would take the handle of the basket or bucket off the hook of the previous person and pass it on and so on.

They still needed to quarry the original product to pulverize it for reconstitution with the added hardener. (Natron) No different that us having gravel pits from which we take the gravel to make cement. Same as we still quarry limestone to crush for making cement.

Cement is produced by roasting powdered limestone with powdered clay in a rotary kiln. When cement is mixed with water, sand and crushed rock, a slow chemical reaction produces a hard, stone-like building material called concrete, and although the AE's probably had a different formula, it's not improbable that they could make a type of concrete, as shown by Prof. Davidovits' film.

This post has been edited by Qoais: 07 November 2009 - 04:20 PM

[Qoais]

[Oniomancer]

Qoais, on 07 November 2009 - 12:10 PM, said:

kmt, I think you posted that article in the do you believe aliens made humans thread. It would be quite a ways back by now.

I was kind of upset at the time because professor Davidovits spent a lot of time and effort in researching what he thought was legitimate samples and from those samples found that the nummolites were not laying in-strata as they would be if the blocks had been cut from the bedrock, but instead, found that the nummolites were all "mixed-up" as they would be if the AE's were using a re-constituted product. Another team (the ones you posted about) had been given legitimate samples of some of the blocks and found the nummolites layered, not mixed. I think it was then Prof. Barsoum or possibly an assistant of Prof. Davidovits that suggested some of the blocks were cut and some were poured. And unless we can have an example from each block in each layer, I think we cannot say one way or the other. It would certainly make it easier to carrier the wet product upwards, as I've said, like a human chain, passing the buckets along from person to person, would negate ramps to the higher portions, other than just ramps from one layer to the next, and even then, if they were passing the buckets up, to someone standing on the next level, perhaps they could do that without a ramp. They could have had short poles with hooks on the end that would take the handle of the basket or bucket off the hook of the previous person and pass it on and so on.

The bedrock where I live is highly fossiliferous limestone. The fossils in it are rarely laid out in nice neat layers. Not all limestone in fact is noticeably layered. What you have rather than a series of killoffs and burials is a slow accumulation of material depositing at a steady rate on the sea floor, with nummulites dieing and dropping into the ooze at random intervals.

Quote

They still needed to quarry the original product to pulverize it for reconstitution with the added hardener. (Natron) No different that us having gravel pits from which we take the gravel to make cement. Same as we still quarry limestone to crush for making cement..

They also needed to find several metric tons of intact nummulites just laying around to dump into the mix. A virtually unheard of circumstance.

[ninjadude]

kmt_sesh, on 07 November 2009 - 12:03 AM, said:

So unless the entire Giza Plateau consists of poured concrete instead of limestone, I don't think we need to suspect that the Great Pyramid was made of concrete blocks.

don;t give them any ideas....

[lakeview rud]

Right, the fossil argument always kills the idea of concrete. If the AE's had a concrete formula and they also could quarry stone they would likely decide to use cut stone where it was visible and important to the design (like the chambers inside) but use concrete where nobody would see it. I'm guessing that the work required to cut stone far exceeded that to crush up rock, mix etc. Plus quarrying stone would result in a supply of debris for further reduction. Also just like today, stone is looked upon as attractive; concrete is not. Say the GP has 6.5 million blocks. Say that maybe 0.5 million are quarried cut stone. If you take the 20 year figure and do some estimating you come up with a number of about 1000 blocks per day. How many men would it take to do that in cut quarried stone? If you use a concrete mix and you use say 5000 men (the rest are support group down below) and their jars hold say 2 and a 1/2 gallons each, fifty men would be able to pour a 250 gallon sized block (about the volume of five 55 gallon drums). 5000 men would be able to pour 100 blocks. If they make 10 trips per day( 1 per hour?) that's the required 1000/day. A 10,000 man work force isn't out of the question. Yes, it sounds ridiculous but it's one of the few theories that doesn't require a)aliens b)levitation c)mile long ramps d) hydraulics e) cranes and pulleys. Add to that that the raw materials including water were available (I don't think they'd run out of sand)and you have a plausible theory. Toughest part of the theory is how long to wait before pouring a new block on top of old. Did they have hardeners like they use today?
Has anyone done a calculation of the volume removed from the quarries and compared that to the pyramid volumes?Somebody come up with another theory that meets the 6.5 million blocks in 20 years and let's look at it.

[cladking]

"Add to that that the raw materials including water were available (I don't think they'd run out of sand)and you have a plausible theory."

...And there's the rub.

If there were water available (and there apparently was) then
one must come up with an explanation for how it got there. This
is 225' above sea level and there should be no water at this
altitude in a desert.

If they had water at the base of the pyramid who's to say they
didn't have water at the []b[]w (75')?

[Qoais]

[Qoais]

Why did you only watch some of the video? It's not all that long. Are you afraid it might shake your beliefs a little bit? Prof. Davidovits also made the blocks and has a video showing how he did it. The resultant product looked exactly like a cut block.

[cladking]

Qoais, on 07 November 2009 - 07:29 PM, said:

Thanks for the "Bull of Heaven" photo. This simply floors me.

This engraving has long intruiged me as well. Lake Moerris is
in the Fayuum Depression about 30 miles south of Giza at the head
of what might be the only dead end arm of a river anywhere. This
area marks the south side of what I believe marks the Land of Hor-
us. I'd be interested to know on what basis the top was drawn as
it was.

[Qoais]

http://www.vimeo.com/1968155

This is a video of Prof. Davidovits explaining about the poured product for the pyramids. He has a new book out which I didn't realize or I'd have had it right away, explaining why the pharaohs used man made blocks.

http://www.vimeo.com/1657432

This is a clip of the staff of Prof. Davidovits actually making the reconstructed blocks. You will notice that they even used the same design for the brace that holds the wood in place as is depicted in the hieroglyphs for the building of "bricks" but it seems to me, that the size of the bricks, would not need to have a brace to hold the shape upwards, since bricks are made laying on the ground.