105 replies to this topic

[the L]

io9.com said:

Here's why everything you thought you knew about how we built the Great Pyramids is probably wrong.

Read more...

[Mentalcase]

Cheese?

[cormac mac airt]

The article starts out with a lie, as no slaves constructed the pyramids, and delves into Davidovits theory which is more BS that's already been gone over in this forum. This is one idea that should die AND STAY DEAD.  

cormac

[bulveye]

Interesting! Would make more sense if they blocks were poured. If it is the case then we should be able to reproduce the procedure. Unless of course aliens made the mixture...  

[Hilander]

It's hard to believe the pyramids are constructed of cement.&nbsp; I would have to have further proof.<br>

[Mentalcase]

Well the fact that it's limestone from a quarry and has plenty of fossils in them, should be a good hint that they were carved.

[OverSword]

cormac mac airt, on 23 December 2011 - 05:19 PM, said:

The article starts out with a lie, as no slaves constructed the pyramids, and delves into Davidovits theory which is more BS that's already been gone over in this forum. This is one idea that should die AND STAY DEAD.  

cormac

I disagree.  Some of the lower level blocks were likely quarried but the upper I believe were poured.  I don't believe this from some expertise or personal study of the egyptian pyramids, but because 99 percent of the time the simple and obvious explanation is correct.

[Marks_Thoughts]

If the blocks were actually cement then the forms should be found, if not in whole, at least in the graphics all around Egypt.  There are writings about all kinds of everyday things, why not the manufacturing of the cement mixture or at least how to lay out the forms?  
Essentially, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Show us.

[Abramelin]

The name of the site says this, "We come from the future."

I am from the "past" and I say they talk crap.

They are idiots with no life. *I* have no life either, but I do not make up fantasies to get the needed attention.

But what is this internet about? It's about crazy people craving for their 15 minutes of fame.

And then we have the doomsday sayers, they are the worst.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 23 December 2011 - 06:02 PM.

[Cassea]

OverSword, on 23 December 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:

I disagree.  Some of the lower level blocks were likely quarried but the upper I believe were poured.  I don't believe this from some expertise or personal study of the egyptian pyramids, but because 99 percent of the time the simple and obvious explanation is correct.

This is so true.  When I see people twisting themselves into knots I can't help but laugh.  Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

[cormac mac airt]

OverSword, on 23 December 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:

I disagree.  Some of the lower level blocks were likely quarried but the upper I believe were poured.  I don't believe this from some expertise or personal study of the egyptian pyramids, but because 99 percent of the time the simple and obvious explanation is correct.

1) They cut the blocks, crushed the limestone, mixed the components into a slurry, poured said slurry into molds, allowed the molds to set, THEN transported the blocks to the pyramid site.

2) They cut the blocks, then moved them into place.

I'd say that option 2 is the simplest and quickest. Also, Professor Ioannis Liritzis has already shown that the blocks are carved and therefore consistent with the sedimentary layout of the Mokattam Formation from where they were removed.

cormac

[Cassea]

cormac mac airt, on 23 December 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

1) They cut the blocks, crushed the limestone, mixed the components into a slurry, poured said slurry into molds, allowed the molds to set, THEN transported the blocks to the pyramid site.

2) They cut the blocks, then moved them into place.

I'd say that option 2 is the simplest and quickest. Also, Professor Ioannis Liritzis has already shown that the blocks are carved and therefore consistent with the sedimentary layout of the Mokattam Formation from where they were removed.

cormac

Then why are there bubbles in the blocks?

[cormac mac airt]

Cassea, on 23 December 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:

Then why are there bubbles in the blocks?

You do know that limestone is a porous material, right?

cormac

[Cassea]

cormac mac airt, on 23 December 2011 - 06:29 PM, said:

You do know that limestone is a porous material, right?

cormac

Yes but you act like dragging the limestone from the quarry was no big deal.  If it was no big deal why is it a mystery.  Bubbles can also be found in cement.  Makes more sense to me.

[cormac mac airt]

Cassea, on 23 December 2011 - 06:33 PM, said:

Yes but you act like dragging the limestone from the quarry was no big deal.  If it was no big deal why is it a mystery.  Bubbles can also be found in cement.  Makes more sense to me.

I never said it was no big deal, however it was done. But using your own argument it IS the simplest answer. In the least, it would likely take days if not weeks for the core of a 2.5 ton block (poured) to harden sufficiently enough to be moved, without disintegrating. And contrary to Davidovits and other 'cement' claims, the blocks are not consistant in size and shape. And again, the internal structure of the blocks is consistent with the natural sedimentary layout of the formation from which they were taken. Something that would not be the case in a poured product.

cormac