Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 7 votes

Secret Caves under the Pyramids


  • Please log in to reply
902 replies to this topic

#646    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,606 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:48 PM

View Postshrooma, on 21 February 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

.
when you build a ramp, you don't build it out of sand, you build it from more suitable material.
the rubble from the quarried stone, being plentiful, and local, would be ideal. as the ramp gets heavier, it doesn't become more unstable, it compacts, becoming more stable.
silbury hill in wiltshire is just as old as the pyramids, one quarter its size, just as steep-sided, and built entirely from piled dirt and chalk rubble, and is very stable indeed!

anything is...only as strong as it's weakest point...and the weakest point is what would keep the ramps in place and the rubble from shifting.

which in itself is very very heavy...

Isn't it all supposed to have been built in 2o years according to the orthodox view..?

There wouldn't have been time to build a Silbury Hill around the pyramid.

And if Silbury Hill had had massive weights moved up it and round it at any time I don't think it would look the same.

It would be wrecked... :D

You're not even supposed to climb up it now on foot...because of damage and possible subsidence...

.

Posted Image


#647    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:50 PM

View Postshrooma, on 21 February 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

nope, can't see the carbonated water thing at all i'm afraid, at least not in the volumes and pressures required.
again, it would be a matter of heft. carbonated water, indeed heavily carbonated water as you say, just wouldn't have the weight to volume needed for the task due to its enormously reduced density.

Keep in mind that they had twenty years years to collect water and that G1 is right next
to a cliff face which also probably had counterweights operating on it. In other words they
could use this water at nearly 300% efficiency!!!  They'd have about 80% efficiency using
its weight from 81' 3" and about 90% efficiency using its weight from 225'.  Of course this
required it actually existed but this is the basis of my argument; that it did.  This is what's
in evidence.

Additionally I believe some of this water was relifted manually with about a 60% efficiency.

In other words I doubt that the amount of human effort expended in lifting the building blocks
exceeded about 5% of the total amount of lifting and that almost all of this 5% was done by lifting
water rather than stones.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#648    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:00 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 21 February 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

I think you can intuitively see the sheer implausibility of the whole geyser thing.

... Whatever happened to the "caves" under the pyramids?

Everybody, including me can see the implausibility of using geysers at Giza.  It's very far-fetched and
anyone who disputes this hasn't studied too much of anything, probably. But the question isn't whether
or not it's so implausible as what theory best represents all the evidence.  I don't know why geysers fit
the facts so well nor why two out of three professional geologists have never even heard of CO2 geysers.
What I know is the news (such as caves at Giza) is still supporting the idea that they used water and not
the idea they used ramps.

Another thing I don't know is why the powers that be won't simply prove me wrong and be done with it.
The argument that they aren't even aware of it holds no water since Hawass referred to the theory in 2009
yet never did a little simple testing to prove it wrong.  What I don't know is why there is so much resistance
to a simple crackpot idea that fits the evidence.  There's more and more evidence to support this every day
and now that many peoiple are looking for evidence of water it just comes flooding in faster and faster.

This theory is going to stand of time even though it is far-fetched.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#649    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:08 PM

"

The cladding rests on the cladding below so it is impossible to set a stone without the stone below already in place.
A ramp gives you access to the pyramid only where the ramp top meets the pyramid.  If the ramp meets the pyramid on the east side you don't have access to the west side to put in cladding stones."


View PostHarte, on 21 February 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

You do if if you place the exterior stones at the same time as the interior ones.

If there is a claddfing stone in place to place another on then you are adding them fromn the
bottom up which isn't the subject.  If there could be a single fact to disprove ramps no one would
ever have proposed ramps in the first place.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#650    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:16 PM

View Postshrooma, on 21 February 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

.
when you build a ramp, you don't build it out of sand, you build it from more suitable material.
the rubble from the quarried stone, being plentiful, and local, would be ideal. as the ramp gets heavier, it doesn't become more unstable, it compacts, becoming more stable.
silbury hill in wiltshire is just as old as the pyramids, one quarter its size, just as steep-sided, and built entirely from piled dirt and chalk rubble, and is very stable indeed!

You're right back where we started.  If you build it out of nice stable rubble then it won't adghere
to the cladded pyramid side.  Ramp proponents keep changing the perspectives each time they
are challenged.  It's all perspective and in the real world you have to stick witha single one or you
end up with something like this;

Posted Image

It's as impossible to build this as it is to build the pyramid with any ramping system.  Even if it were
possible you'd still be stuck with a lack of evidence and you'd be lkedft with a building method that
required for more work than the pyramid itself just to use an inefficient method.

Why wouldn't they just stand on top and pull the stones up?  Why won't anyone answer this question?

What is evidenced is they pulled the stones up one step at a time so why fight it?

What is the power that highly inefficient, wasteful, and unevidenced ramps hold over people?

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#651    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:23 PM

View PostHarte, on 21 February 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

You DO go on.

The above (bolded) is patently absurd.  A spiral ramp would hardly extend past the footprint of the pyramid, and then only on one side.

No.  Read Petrie.  Or look at the photo.  It is very narrow.

These would have been completely filled by a spiral ramp.

So now most ramp proponents will say they couldda used a straight ramp and we'll be right back where we were. When you shoot dowbn the straight ramp it's spiral again. MC Escher couldn't keep up with it.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#652    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,655 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:33 PM

View Postcladking, on 21 February 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

No.  This is the nature of all ramps.  They can only access the pyramid at the point they
join the pyramid. This is virtually true by definition.

Of course in theory you can bury the entire thing under a mountain of ramp and then re-
carve the ramp to access all points but in practice it would be a nightmare.  And you still
have the pyramid hidden under a mountain of ramps.

You just can't make it work.
Yeah. It might take YEARS to do the whole thing right.

Even if they did the cladding on the way up, that proves nothing. Aligning the pyrmaids corners is still easy. It can be done in almost the same manner as they used to lay out the base so accurately. Unless you want to argue that the Sun moved differently over the 20 years, or that they somehow got a lot stupider over the construction of the pyramid.

View Postcladking, on 21 February 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Cladding on the way down is not only impossible because of the nature of the cladding
it is also impossible due to the nature of ramps.  It can't have happened.  Study the pictures
of the G2 top and this should become clear.

Posted Image

Also look at the picture of the intact cladding stone on G1.
If the block below supports the one above, making cladding on the way down impossible, then what is holding that cladding Up? Wouldn't taking the lower cladding off make the upper cladding fall right off? That is your arguement, right?.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#653    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,655 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:35 PM

View Postcladking, on 21 February 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

No.  Read Petrie.  Or look at the photo.  It is very narrow.

These would have been completely filled by a spiral ramp.

So now most ramp proponents will say they couldda used a straight ramp and we'll be right back where we were. When you shoot dowbn the straight ramp it's spiral again. MC Escher couldn't keep up with it.
Maybe they used these hidden caves to drain the water? :w00t: :innocent:

The AE were able to put culverts under walls, roads and entire buildings, so why couldn't they have put drainage under a ramp?

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#654    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:42 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 21 February 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

376 and 377 come from utterance 269, a censing prayer, and in full it reads -
The fire is laid, the fire shines;
The incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.
Your perfume comes to me, O incense;
May my perfume come to you, O incense.
Your perfume comes to me, you gods;
May my perfume come to you, you gods.
May I be with you, you gods;
May you be with me, you gods.
May I live with you, you gods;
May you live with me, you gods.
I love you, you gods;
May you love me, you gods.

I put incense in bold just to emphasise that what is written about here is the smoke from incense, not a body, this is why it is a censing prayer.

And in 2053, well, it is better to read from 2051. Notice the part about embalming.....

Utterance 684, An ascension text.
This King ascended when you ascended, O Osiris; his word and his double are bound for the sky, the King's bones are iron and the King's members are the imperishable stars. If the King be caused to be embalmed, the Great One will fall before the King, for the King's mother is Nut, the King's father is Shu, the King's grandmother is Tefnet, they take the King to the sky, to the sky, on the smoke of incense. (not any burning body)

Each translation of the PT is getting further and further away from geysers and more and more
like the book of the dead.  There are even scholars I've been reading who complain of the same
thing.  But like everything it is critical that you maintain a single perspective to observe it. Many peo-
ple mistakingly believe that an airplane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt running the opposite
direction because when they think about it their perspective changes around over ands over.  Some
simply don't understand the nature of a wheel so will miss it.  60% of aviation engineers miss this
question where if they flipped a coin only half would miss it.

You can't simply get rid of geysers by using other tranlations because they appear in all of the trans-
lations.  Generally I'm not not going to address other translations because I understand the PT only
in terms of Sethe's and Mercer's.  I could do Faulkner if I worked on it but I've never worked on it.  The
one you've chosen here has almost exactly the same meaning as Mercer though.

The fire is laid, the fire shines;
The incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.
Your perfume comes to me, O incense;
May my perfume come to you, O incense.
Your perfume comes to me, you gods;
May my perfume come to you, you gods.
May I be with you, you gods;

It never says only the incense is in the fire, merely that the fire is made.  It says the odor of the incense
comes to the (dead king).  Then it says that the odor of the dead king goes to the incense.  Why are you
jumping to the conclusion that the king isn't in the fire?  The odor of the king and incense then goes to
the gods (in heaven).

376a. To say: The fire is laid, the fire shines;
376b. the incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.
376c. Thy fragrance comes to N., O Incense; the fragrance of N. comes to thee, O Incense.
377a. Your fragrance comes to N., O ye gods; the fragrance of N. comes to you, O ye gods.
377b. May N. be with you, O ye gods; may you be with N., O ye gods.
377c. May N. live with you, O ye gods; may you live with N., O ye gods.
p. 91
378a. May N. love you, O ye gods; love him, O ye gods.

This is what it says.  It says the king isn't really burned up by the flame but that it merely
delivers him from the bandages.  You can dispute the interpretation all you want but the
literal meaning of the entire PT is consistent, doesn't suggest grammatical errors, and
fits with the actual evidence.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#655    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:01 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 21 February 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Yeah. It might take YEARS to do the whole thing right.

Even if they did the cladding on the way up, that proves nothing. Aligning the pyrmaids corners is still easy. It can be done in almost the same manner as they used to lay out the base so accurately. Unless you want to argue that the Sun moved differently over the 20 years, or that they somehow got a lot stupider over the construction of the pyramid.

Yes.  I've thought of this before and rejected it on the basis of quite a bit of evidence.
Chiefly is that it would be exceedingly difficult to level it using water each time unless
they had a water source.  Also keep in mind that there are over 200 courses so in twenty
years they'd have to stop and lay it out again at least ten times per year.  This is no sim-
ple matter of waving a wand but meticulous stellar observations.  Also remember that
doing it this way would cause errors to be cummulative and this isn't what we see in the
course layout.  They'd have a small error accumulate and then they would correct it.  This
would be almost impossible if the pyramid were hidden under piles of ramps.  They ex-
pended a huge amount of effort to layout the corners and doing this on each level would
be far more difficult and get increasingly difficult with height.  Don't forget too that this is
an eight sided structure.

Quote

If the block below supports the one above, making cladding on the way down impossible, then what is holding that cladding Up? Wouldn't taking the lower cladding off make the upper cladding fall right off? That is your arguement, right?.

There are a few things holding it up.  And it is almost proof of all my contentions.

The pyramids were built in steps but they had to be cladded from the top down due to the nature
of the way they were finished.  Don't get me wrong here;  almost every cladding stone was laid on
one below but the to[p steps were completed first.  in order to place a cladding stone on the step
bottom without a cladding stone below took some extra effort.  Namely each step was topped off
with a thinner course.  This allowed them to build up the base of the step and insert a large clad-
ding stone as the base for the cladders on that step.  When the top step was done they did the
same thing on the 4th step and when they got to the top there was a thin gap between the cladding
of the top and second to top steps.  The bottom stones of the higher step weren't really resting on
the cladding stones below but they still filled in these gaps with 22" high partial cladding stones for
strenght and cosmetic reasons.  I believe this job was done by the "Necklace Stringers" as they were
called.  This was a simple yet exotic and dangerous rigging job.

The stones are hanging on up there primarily because most of it is balanced on special stones made
for that purpose and visible in some photos.  This is consistent with Herodotus' accout that says the
pyramids were built from the top down.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#656    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:02 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 21 February 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

Maybe they used these hidden caves to drain the water? :w00t: :innocent:

The AE were able to put culverts under walls, roads and entire buildings, so why couldn't they have put drainage under a ramp?

Yes, if it were only a single ramp they could have put a drain under it.  A spiral ramp would
completely fill the water collection device though so it could serve no purpose during construction.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#657    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:32 PM

View Postcladking, on 20 February 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

I know my "interpretation" of the PT and culture is unique.  This doesn't prove it's wrong.

Nor does it prove it right

cladking said:

If you eliminate the PT because Egyptology can't find proof that it existed earlier than
there is simply no evidence at all.  Yes, to exercise perfect methodology and logic we
probably should simply say we don't know anything at all (other than experimental re-
sults).  This means no ramps, no tombs, no cultural context, nothing.

I don't have a problem with this really but you need to realize that all the physical evi-
dence supports my contention as well
.  This means that they "mustta used geyser".  Pick
your poison.  You also need to realize that it was the PT that led me to most of the phys-
ical evidence; the two are mutually consistent as well as internally consistent.

There is physical evidence of ramps in the form of ramp remains.  What physical evidence do you have of actual geysers?

cladking said:

If I really understand the PT then it's irrelevant when they were written because they still
say the pyramids were built with geysers.  Sure it's heads I win tails you lose but this is the
the evidence that was left for us.

It's not irrelevant at all.  Let us assume for discussions sake that earlier versions existed and were written about 3000 BCE.  They would not be referring to the pyramids in any way since they  would have been written hundreds of years before the first pyramid was built.  

It is your understanding of the PT but you have yet to prove that your understanding is correct.  Until such time, if ever, that it is proved correct,  making a statement of fact that the pyramids were built with geysers is little more than wishful thinking.

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#658    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,608 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:44 PM

View Postcladking, on 21 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

The water was caught at the top of its trajectory at 81' 3".

It was then collected in large counterweights and when these fell over the side they lifted a load of stone on the other side to which they were attached.

Two problems with your counterweights:

1 - The geyser is next to the pyramid and shoots straight up.  The counterweight sits on the level the stones are to be raised to.  In the beginning the water could be caught in a counterweight.   However, as the pyramid rises, each succeeding level moves towards the center and gets farther from the base.  How does the water from the geyser get into the counterweight that is 25, 50 or 100+ ft from the base and the geyser?

2 - 18 tons of stone has just been lifted with the counterweight system.  How do the workers empty 18 tons (4300+ gallons) of water out of the counterweight so it can be used again?

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#659    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:53 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 21 February 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

There is physical evidence of ramps in the form of ramp remains.  What physical evidence do you have of actual geysers?

Posted Image

I just don't know understand how much evidence people need.  There is repotedly carbonated water under
the plateau and Temple says this is percolating.

Frankly I always figured if I got you a picture of a geyser you'd believe me.  Now I think if a geyser stood up
today on the plateau people would call it a remarkable coincidence.

Quote

It's not irrelevant at all.  Let us assume for discussions sake that earlier versions existed and were written about 3000 BCE.  They would not be referring to the pyramids in any way since they  would have been written hundreds of years before the first pyramid was built.

The PT aren't about pyramids.  They are about the rituals involved with getting him to heaven.    


Quote

It is your understanding of the PT but you have yet to prove that your understanding is correct.  Until such time, if ever, that it is proved correct,  making a statement of fact that the pyramids were built with geysers is little more than wishful thinking.

I don't care how the pyramids were built.  I merely want to know how they were and it seems
that most everyone else has their minds made up.  Egyptologists generally don't even care how
they were built and won't investigate.  Hawass wouldn't even explore a cave that he swore
didn't exist.  Egyptologists just wanrt everyone to accept it must have been rampsso they can
get on with talking about the Egyptians.  But their version of Egyptians disn't exist and will evap-
orate faster than a bucket of water on a dust dry ramp if they ever explore the caves or do any
simple science.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#660    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:08 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 21 February 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Two problems with your counterweights:

1 - The geyser is next to the pyramid and shoots straight up.  The counterweight sits on the level the stones are to be raised to.  In the beginning the water could be caught in a counterweight.   However, as the pyramid rises, each succeeding level moves towards the center and gets farther from the base.  How does the water from the geyser get into the counterweight that is 25, 50 or 100+ ft from the base and the geyser?

2 - 18 tons of stone has just been lifted with the counterweight system.  How do the workers empty 18 tons (4300+ gallons) of water out of the counterweight so it can be used again?

View PostQuaentum, on 21 February 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Two problems with your counterweights:

1 - The geyser is next to the pyramid and shoots straight up.  The counterweight sits on the level the stones are to be raised to.  In the beginning the water could be caught in a counterweight.   However, as the pyramid rises, each succeeding level moves towards the center and gets farther from the base.  How does the water from the geyser get into the counterweight that is 25, 50 or 100+ ft from the base and the geyser?

No problem at all.  Early structure were built with the geyser in the center probably but this
didn't apply to the great pyramids.  These wells were very carefully and expertly drilled. The
Pt describes how the water sprayed up at various pressures.  At low pressure the water was
went up at an angle toward the SE, as it built it switched to the SW until it was  almost straight
up when seated in the eye of the device above that caught it.  This device was built at the exact
same time as the pyramid and grew with it until it reached 81' 3".  The water was transported the
approximately 80' in a canal.  The device was made out of tura limestone so it could be recut in-
to cladding stones as the project was winding down.

No effort was wasted.  Everything that went up stayed up or its weight was used to lift something.

Quote

2 - 18 tons of stone has just been lifted with the counterweight system.  How do the workers empty 18 tons (4300+ gallons) of water out of the counterweight so it can be used again?

Surprisingly the PT are almost mum on this topic.  There are numerous ways it could be done.  The
PT probavbly doesn't mention it largely because this water was a "god" (the phenomenon of ballast,
named Seker).  But it was also the "wdn.t-offerring" of the king.

In all probability the track which the counterweight traveled merely curved up at the end and the water
came out the top.  This is hardly certain though and the counterweight did have a means to dump the
water while it was upright represented by the "tail of the bull of heaven" by which the king "could bail
out the henu-boat.  I believe this was used only in emergencies however. The counterweifght had a
quick disconnect on it called the "tie of isis" so it's even possible they could just disconnect it and attach
the ropes to an already empty counterweight when the rope went slack.  It just doesn't matter but they
had so many bells and whistles and automatic devices that I'd guess they used the easiest means
possible that required no effort at all.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users