Although I truly respect the great body of work done by Dr. Zahi Hawass, I've long found him to be something of a Nationalist. His arguments are very well thought out, 100% convincing, and always biased towards towards the belief in his enlightened benevolent Pharaonic ancestry versus any other theory. He has almost singlehandedly convinced the civilized world that the entire saga of Moses'
freeing of the Hebrew slaves is nothing less than pure fiction. Thanks to all the face time he now gets, he is also chiefly responsible for the modern world accepting that the pyramids were built by a volunteer labor force of dedicated
Egyptian workers only a few thousand years ago.

In fact, his evidence is predominantly circumstantial, and much of that is based on scant hieroglyphic historical documentation. I think we're all intelligent enough to realize that written "history" in any culture, including our own brief American history, tends to glorify those in power and contain considerable fictionalized bias.
In others words, don't believe everything you read.

There is considerable evidence to contradict the popular pyramid theory, and it should not be so quickly written off. I believe the pyramids predate Pharaonic rule by thousands of years, as do the pyramids of Mesoamerica. At best, the Pharaohs are responsible for a tremendous amount of restorative work on the already-existing structures in order to use them for their own purposes, and that they then claimed the structures as their own creations. It seems far more likely to me that all of these constructions, from the pyramids to Stonehenge, were the products of a prior long-forgotten age of Mankind. I see more than sufficient evidence all over the world to suggest that civilizations have risen to great technological heights only to be destroyed and forgotten over time. Along with the monumental buildings, other technologies certainly would have developed and been in common use during those times. These most certainly would have included the technology to cut, transport, lift and affix stones which weigh as much as 400 tons. What that technology was, I can only speculate. That secret has been lost, although our own modern inroads into the use of superconductive electromagnetism provide one possible answer. Aircraft might have also existed in a previous civilization, which would have made lifting such heavy stones a lot easier.

While these concepts may seem far-fetched to the majority, I think they're more plausible than the image of hundreds of men with primitive plant-fiber ropes hauling a 400-ton block over hill and dale--and water--and then up a 51-degree incline ( or worse, straight up ) millions of times over a 20-year stretch. Consider the improbability of such a grueling effort in the relentless desert heat, or in the thin atmosphere of the Peruvian Andes. I feel this scenario is absolutely preposterous, even in the most temperate climatic conditions.

I believe there is a concerted effort in the world today to blatantly decry and discredit any theory which implies a previous technologically advanced culture on Earth. The reasons for this are clear enough--if we get it into our heads that many prior civilizations have risen and fallen over a million or so years, we might become less secure in our own civilization. That could lead to all sorts of sociological dilemmas, similar to the social upheavals that might arise from a bona fide extraterrestrial visitation.

But, I digress. The pyramid builders are long dead, as is the truth of their origins.
Until incontravertible evidence presents itself one way or the other, we may as well say it was all the work of magickal pixies from the 19th dimension.

History is written by the victors.

I think you are reffering to Davidovits' theory. I find it rather unlikely. There is no known way of creating artificial granite, since it would require temperatures of many tens of thousand degrees and extremely high pressure. For what concerns sandstone, concrete is in fact artificial limestone, however, it bears many differences which make it completely different from natural sandstone. First of all, concrete contains air bubbles, which are nearly completely absent in natural limestone, besides, it would contain particles, wood fragments, dirt which are completely absent in the pyramid's stones. Besides, it has been widely proven the stone used were quarried in a quarry located in Tura, where the same quarry marks are still visible.

I partly agree with Professorwizard. The pyramids and structures commonly dated to the IV dinasty might actually be far older than previously thought. The same monolithic architecture is found on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, in Egypt, Tiahuanaco, Greece and southern Italy. Those structures, might be the last relics of a long forgotten past, remnants of ancient civilizations whose history still has to be written down.

I agree with the prof too
right up until he said"Aircraft might have also existed in a previous civilization, which would have made lifting such heavy stones a lot easier."
scratch that bit

At sunset on December 31st, a gold-encased capstone will be lowered by helicopter onto the top the Great Pyramid, setting off a specially commissioned dusk-to-dawn music and laser show by the French musician Jean-Michel Jarre. "The opera will be called The Twelve Dreams of the Sun," Jarre told a news conference here, adding that he had turned down several other offers for the millennium for the "privilege" of performing at Giza. "The pyramids are a reflection of mankind and eternity," he said by way of explanation.

The idea for the celebration came from Pharaonic reliefs at Abu Sir, site of yet more pyramids (albeit ruined ones)
about 15 km south of Giza. There Dr. Zahi Hawass, the ebullient archaeologist in charge of the Giza Plateau,
discovered a scene depicting workers dragging a capstone with the hieroglyphic word for "white gold" written
underneath. He also found a relief showing women dancing. "Every household in the north and south of Egypt used to participate in the building of the pyramid by sending workers, food and grain," explained Dr. Hawass. "My
interpretation is that when the king finished building the pyramid they put a capstone on top and after that the people sang and danced because the nation's project was finished. That is what we are doing at the millennium."

From the news
i have heard other references to scenes like this but personally i've never seen one.
But that'll be me listening to experts in this field that say such a thing does exist and there are several examples
I don't get out to egypt much

I'm afraid Davidivits' theory doesn't apply to the Egyptian pyramids, but there are a few Mesoamerican structures to which it might accurately apply. Many of those stones do indeed look as if they were poured into some sort of flexible container onsite, which was later removed. I've done this with poured clay and trash bags on a much smaller scale, but the precise fitting and slight "bag bulge" which results from the process is almost identical in appearance to temple stones in several Inca sites. It would explain why the anterior surfaces are razor-precise, while the exteriors are convex and "lumpy". As to the content and physical properties of this theoretical "poured stone", I'd have to say that for all the many types and techniques for mixing and moulding cement existing today, there are doubtless hundreds more yet to be tried and/or long forgotten...?

Marduk, the point of this thread is that there might have been a central column in the pyramid through which the block were raised. What I am doing is pointing out the questions that such a theory would have to answer in order to be considered valid. The theory of pyramid construction through the use of levers and ramps, while still they reigning champ in terms of supporting evidence, is not the theory this thread is about.

In other words, instead of advancing the currently accepted theory, I am giving this theory the benefit of scientific doubt, and asking the questions that I would need answers to prior to deciding that it is a credible and valid theory.

Marduk, the point of this thread is that there might have been a central column in the pyramid through which the block were raised. What I am doing is pointing out the questions that such a theory would have to answer in order to be considered valid. The theory of pyramid construction through the use of levers and ramps, while still they reigning champ in terms of supporting evidence, is not the theory this thread is about.

In other words, instead of advancing the currently accepted theory, I am giving this theory the benefit of scientific doubt, and asking the questions that I would need answers to prior to deciding that it is a credible and valid theory.
[right][snapback]632339[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well, if you're going to open a can of worms, you should be prepared to eat some.

ah ok then sorry
then let me assist you in coming to a conclusion

Hmm maybe its off to one of the sides eh ??
My main point is still this
there is no need for a central column. The pyramids were built as step pyramids one level at a time
why would you attempt to engineer a central column that required a great deal of skilled expertise and attention to detail to build when you could just lever the block up the stepped side and in through the unfinished roof of the kings chamber.
what do you think is easier
The egyptians didn't need a central column to construct anything. it would just weaken the structure considerably. We'd know if there was one because the great pyramid of giza would be a pile of rubble thousands of years ago
ok ??

Works for me. And so another thread comes to an untimely end. Excellent presentation, despite the sarcasm.

I agree, both that the presentation was quite good, and that the sarcasm did more to detract from it than help in any way.

Hopefully, it is enough to show that the idea of a central column is not very probable due to the greater amount of engineering difficulties it would have presented, rather than solved.

Guys i'm touched
thankyou
sorry for the sarcasm
you saying it isn't the highest form of wit anymore
why didn't somebody tell me this earlier ?
hehe

S'okay, we still love you

I will cease and desist for now since I am faced with a bevy of dissbelievers but just remember when the central shaft is discovered in the pyramid where you heard about it first.

we're not disbelievers
if you had a valid theory then there'd be something to disbelieve.
i suggest you go back and read my last post and this time carefully.
get a new theory basically cos this one blows chunks
sorry buddy
but thats the truth


[edit:no need to quote the entire post above you]

You'll never get anywhere if you stop just because you run up against disbelievers. Heck, there are still people today who don't believe in evolution or in a heliocentric universe.

What you need to do is not run and hide, but find support for the claims that you are making. The very first question I asked is still unanswered: How dis the Egyptians raise heavy stones within the central shaft without the benefits of pulleys?

Like Marduk said, we aren't necessarily disbelievers, we just find your theory to be incomplete.

aquatus1, I will attempt an explanation to satisfy your questions. Firstly, yes, I believe the builders had devised some sort of pulleys, the evidence of has not come down to us through the ages. A system of pulleys could have been positioned above at whatever working level had been achieved throughout the construction effort. Above a delivery barge loaded with stone(s) that was parked and stabilized in the channel from the near-by Nile directly below.

Leather bags of water could have been could have been brought up the same channel and used to fill a counter balance conveyance that when heavy enough would have brought up the stone below. A square foot of water weighs about a third of an equal volume of stone. Therefore whatever the volume of stone to be brought up would have taken three times the volume of water to counterbalance.

A mere half inch diameter hemp rope has a breaking strength of about 9000 pounds. So multiple ropes working in tandum can do any job within the scope of work done in building the pyramids. The picture someone posed of the blocking stones being held
in rediness is a good illustration to see how this mechanism might work.

How did they get enough water, up the shaft to use for counterbalancing the stone, you ask? My visualization is that the shaft was probably about thirty feet square so several workers could have been working away inpendanty each bringing up leather bags of water in small, managable quantities to add incrimentally to the counterbalance until the weight to be lifted began to rise. There would have been an unlimited supply of water in the channel from the Nile directly below.

The moving parts of the pulleys, or the ropes sliding over stationary smoothed parts of the lifting mechanism, could have been lubricated with fat grease to reduce friction between the ropes and parts to slide them over. To my mind this would have been a safe and easy way to lift the stones no matter their weight or size.

Getting the stones, once lifted, out of the perimeter of the shaft and onto the solid working platform for moving into position would be another problem to solve. Shall I go on?

I have already spotted several problems with this explanation, however I think it would be best to listen to the whole thing prior to pointing them out. Please go on.

Ditto

How about this, for those concerned about damaging the Pyramid. And this shouldn't cost an arm and a leg to do.

Take drilling equipment to the top of the pyramid. It can be minimal equipment, enough to drill through limestone and just a small hole, say two inches in diameter. The top of the pyramid is flat but rough and about a thirty foot square surface.

Set up the equipment then drill a hole straight down through the center. My expectation is that within 20 feet of drilling, which is next to nothing, the drill will break into the inside hollow central shaft I've described. If it does the next step would be to put a light and cable camera through the hole to have a look inside. Should they find what I think they will find it will generate much world-wide interest.

The next step would be to make the hole large enough for a man to climb down through to be let down into the interior of the pyramid to video what there is to see. Could be he would find evidence of yet undiscovered tunnels and/or rooms to be explored.

If no interior shaft is found, or even if one is found, there would be no damage to the integrity of the pyramid or its known features. On the other hand if something interesting is found the world would be a better place for finding that out. No telling where further exploration might lead?

Lastly, the hole could be plugged if nothing is found.

and who pays for all this work if there is no hole ?
If you got the funds for this contact Zahi Hawass at the egyptian antiquities commission.
He's always open to interesting new ideas like this.

No no no, the spaceships moved them !!

Eygd, before attempting to confirm that your theory is correct, you will need to show that is is plausible and credible. No one is going to drill into the pyramid without a darn good argument as to why they are doing so. "Because we might find a shaft." ran dry as an excuse back when explorers considered dynamite a research tool.

There has to be strong support for an idea in order for it to be followed up on. The idea has to be capable of answering more questions than it makes, and has to take into account all the existing information. Being factually correct is actually only important towards the end of the process. Currently, what we have here is you telling us that you believe it was possible to construct a central shaft (and, remember, many of us have reasons why a central shaft would not be possible) and that we should find out by drilling a hole through the pyramid. That isn't going to cut it. We need a plausible reason why we should believe such a thing exists in the first place, followed by an explanation of why we should believe the Egyptians did it in that manner, followed by an explanation of the process itself (you jumped straight into this step), followed by a way to confirm this theory (You did explain how, but you didn't explain why we should expect a confirmation from this. Why 20 feet? There needs to be a reason). If you are asking us to make unfounded assumptions (such as the Egyptians using pulleys) you need to be able to show why this is a reasonable assumption to make and why no evidence of this ability has yet been found.

Do you have any further information to put out, or do you wish to hear some of the specific difficulties your idea would create?

I have never been to Egypt, only looked at pictures and read what I can find on the subject of the Great Pyramid. To move the stones by water all the way into the construction project and then up to the level required, all by water even using the abundant water as balast to lift the stones would have been a much better plan than those plans put forth by other speculaters. It is all speculation because there are no eye witness accounts that have been found. What has been found was at best several hundred years removed from the time of the actual construction even if you want to suppose the later date of 2600 BC. We can't even be certain of that except it's what conventional wizdom likes best. I don't think like a philosopher or a scholar like those possessing the conventional wizdom possess. I think like an Engineer which is what I am! It is foolish to think all those stones were dragged somehow over land by teams on humans by any means possible. What smart humans have going for them is sensible thought. And surely the ones who built the grand pyramids were sensible construction oriented people, not scholars. You are believing in the wrong people rather than listening to reason.



I am done farting with this now and moving on to more productive work. You can tell me what you think is wrong if you want, I might even read it. Don't expect me to agree with you. We seem worlds apart in our thinking. Someday this idea I have put forth will come to someone who counts in the hiarchy of importance. A hole will be drilled in the top of the pyramid then all hell will break loose for the world to know the truth about the pyramids. I might not be around to see it as I am 75 years old and not in perfect health anymore. Have a nice day.

[edit - fixed quotes]

Since you have no interest in learning to research, I will not bore you with the faults in your arguments. You are not, incidentaly, an engineer, and you should not fool yourself into thinking that you can pass yourself off as one. Nor do you think like an engineer, or you would most certainly not advance such a technically dangerous and inefficient method of construction such as this.

I sincerly hope you someday learn the difference between research and scientific theory, and speculation and wild guesses. Should you be interested in how you can advance your case more convincingly, I am at your disposal for advice and education.

The aliens did it.....I'm serious !

Egyd, I did some research concerning your theory. There might be indeed be proof your theory might (I underline "might") be correct. I remember having seen a rather curious depiction of the pyramid, so I did some research in the local library.
As an upshot, I managed to find a book (in italian)titled "Sulle piramidi d'Egitto e sulla loro costruzione - pensieri ed osservazioni" (on the pyramids of Egypt and their building, thoughts and observations) by Cav. D'Emarese Enrico, printed in 1861 in Turin, a member of the military order of St. Maurice and Lazarus. In which he describes a huge cavity, in the shape of a tower so high he couldn't determine its exact height, in the center of the pyramid, right above the intersection between the descending passage and the great gallery. He also decribes features such as the presence of a rock hill under the pyramid and a "cistern" filled with water right below the underground chamber. This is the original passage, in italian:
"... quale non fu la mia sorpresa allorché m'avvidi di trovarmi nel vano d'una grande quadrata torre, tanto alta che i molti lumi degli elevati ceri non arrivavano ad illuminare la sua sommità? U,TAV.1 Mi fu ovvio allora conoscere che questa grande torre posta nel centro della Piramide, chiudendosi solo alla quasi superiore estremità, era come l'uovo di Colombo, o del Brunellesco; fu facile allora immaginare che la porta d'entrata cotanto elevata dal suolo era dovuta al non avere spianata tutta la platea; che la precipitosa discesa del pianerottolo, e corridojo, fu espressamente ingegnata per far scorrere senza fatica tutte le pietre nel centro della Piramide; e che infine l'unico mezzo a poter innalzare con qualche agevolezza così gigantesca mole fu quello certamente di elevare tutte le pietre sino al pianerottolo inclinato, facendole sdrucciolare pel corridojo discendente al centro della torre, elevandole poscia senza enorme fatica con un semplice, ma ben robusto argano." I will later post a complete translation. Unfortunately, in the edition I found, the mentioned plates were missing.
To be honest, I find however difficult to believe the existance of such a structure could have been ignored for so mucg time.

aquatus1, It is not supposed to and not allowed here for this to resolve itself into a personal battle with attacks on one another with words. I am an enginner though electrical. But I have had enough mechanical training and involvement in my 43 year carrier to know basics for a problem like moving heavy objects and using what is available to do a seemingly imposible task such as what faced the builders of the pyramids.

I see from your profile that your expertise is in "Spirituality and Skepticism". Given that I might have expected your reaction to be as it is to my idea. It is after all only an idea. Surely you don't think I harbor the idea that someone will actually take up my idea and go try it do you? This is a discussion group only as far as I know and my idea has as much validity as anyone's. You are entitled to your opinion. Be well.

Translation:" I was truly marvelled when I realized I was in a cavity resembling the interior of a huge square tower, so high our lamps couldn't make us guess its height. I realized this tower posed in the midlle of the pyramid and ending near its apex was some kind of Columbus'egg, and it was then easy to guess that the reason why its entrance was so high above the floor (at the intersection between the descending passage and great gallery) was to allow an easy transportation of the blocks sealing the pyramid's main entrance, and that the only means to do that was through a huge cavity, through which lift or bring down stones, using some kind of massive arganon."

It could be aliens, but then again, what would be the point?

I believe tyrannic pharaohs forced thousand of slaves to build monuments in their own glory. This glory (or ego) is also manifested in the recarving of the Sphinx.

And to partially answer the original question, I believe the slaves lifted the rocks with some sort of primitive cranes.

Thats a pretty good description of the kings chamber ?
whats so surprising about that ?
it clearly indicates that the author believed that the large blocks were lowered in rather than up "and that the only means to do that was through a huge cavity, through which lift or bring down stones using some kind of massive arganon"
this is the way that orthodoxy says they were built. An arganon is a wooden crane that uses the principle of leverage to lower blocks into place.

heres a pic

"I realized this tower posed in the midlle of the pyramid and ending near its apex"

Maybe you are right, I'm still looking for the plates, however it seems to refer to a "tower" located above the crossing between the descending passage and the great gallery. This would however imply it not being at the exact center of the pyramid. The error in positioning it within the pyramid's planimetry might be however due to the lack of instruments to make such measurements.

whoever designed the damn things is certainly a genius.i would like to know also how those lines in the deserts of south america,ya know the ones that depict the man,spiders,etc,i would like to know how they built those things.they would have to have some way to see them from the air while building them i would think!

just because they're designed to be seen from the air doesn't mean they were constructed that way. If you're thinking primitive balloon forget it. what did the engineer do shout down instructions ? "left a bit right a bit etc"
they were constructed by removing the top layer of soil from the surface.
same way as english chalk figures are made. No one's saying that the white horse of uffington was made with the use of aircraft

i hope


This is another one of danikens theories that has filtered down into mainstream belief.
They weren't spaceship runways either !!


have a look at the nazca plain from the air
you can't see the animals from too high up but you can still see the lines ?
any guesses ?

I have just been reading more on the Net about a place only 400 miles to the Northeast as the crow flies called Baalbek in Lebanon. There they quarried and moved stones up to 1100 Tons to build something called "Jupiter's Temple" as named by the Romans in 27 BC. So the stones moved to build the Pyramids were as childs play by comparison to Jupiter's Temple. Go to http://www.geocities.com/jirimruzek/baalbek.htm to read about this. Again, as is speculated by some, the huge stone constructions are attributed to an earlier time than known history tells us about.

The thought occurs to me that the Great Pyramid may be a time capsule just waiting to be discovered. Within its huge volume somewhere may be recorded the secrets of the distant past. It would seem we have already been teased by the numbers to be realized that are recoded in the sizes of the rooms and the pyramid itself. Mathematicians have equated the dimensions of rooms and the pyramid to primary numbers like Pi and others that are basic to natural phenomena. Perhaps the builders already knew that it would take man time to develop to the point of recognition of such numbers and that they are coded into the pyramid for us to discover. No telling what else is waiting to be discovered with those stone walls?

actually they quarried three stones that weigh 800tons each and formed the lower stretch of a wall with them. then they gave up. Thats why the place is called the trilithium. One further block weighing 1000 tons sits where it was cut in the quarry which is at the entrance of the site. In other words 1000 tons was a little too optomistic
"No telling what else is waiting to be discovered with those stone walls?"
A lot more stone blocks ??
Bet ??


eygd,
you're an engineer so you'll probably appreciate what this guy has to say about moving large stone blocks
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/Page1.htm
enjoy

is there evidence this technique was actually used marduk?

I am reserving comment on this until I understand it better. Lots of the photos are blank and some of the explanations seem gobble-e-gook to me. I did notice at the end that he has a video for sale for $15. Perhaps the sale of that video is the main purpose of his web site? What looks like concrete blocks in his photos could be painted wooden objects that weigh little. Watch out for this one!

My evidence is the subterranean room at the bottom center of the pyramid with features that looks like mooring devices for barges to me going in all directions from where the barge would be parked for unloading. This mooring would be required to stabilze the barge while it is being unloaded.

A second clue to my mind is that all the above rooms and access ways are off center by 24 feet and lie in a north-south narrow plane through the pyramid.

It can also be seen in the only place the outer shell of stone has been breached that within the shell the pyramid is composed of "A" frame construction rather than generally accepted levels of stones, course built upon course, as the outside would suggest. With "A" frame construction huge portions of the interior could be air space rather than all stone fill. Whoever built this thing was big on the value of triangulation for strength and stability. Ever heard of truss construction used in roofs of buildings? I can imagine that the whole pyramid is over half empty space rather than stone as presumed. This would make for fewer stones and faster construction than conventional wisdom presumes.

I say go down through the top and you'll find a central construction shaft that would have greatly reduced the total effort required to build the pyramid. The empty 30X30 central shaft alone would save the need for 405900 square feet of stone and the pyramid would not be weakened by having a hollow core or air space under many "A" frames through out the pyramid. Who knows even more rooms with.... what?

wonder if the same technique was used on stonehenge&easter island???

Yes.
As I said before the mystery of the pyramids isn't how the were built.
It's what they were built for.
This isn't so much a mystery but a fallacy promoted by people that don't understand egyptian history or culture.

Well here's the thing
Most of the pictures require java to be viewed,
and all the techniques displayed are well known engineering principles and you claiming to be a professional engineer now sounds extremely dodgy.
Look you don't seem to get it so i'll spell it out for you Egyd.
You're idea for a central column is laughable
It shows that you have a lack of experise in engineering and egyptology.
Thats it
Give you're stereo a nudge.
the records stuck

so marduk u agree with eygd
intepretation of the clues to whether this technique was used or not?

There's about 0% probability.
See people have already looked in the top of the great pyramid because the capstone is missing
guess what
no chamber. Well apart from the kings chamber who's roof actually forms the inside apex.
Still some people need to do some research themselves
i wonder why they don't bother
???

laziness i guess
lol
to some ppl speculation is betta
than boring research....

not sure how this theory sounds, cos i'm no engineer, but i read it and it sounded kinda interesting (also don't ask me for a source cos it was a while ago and i can't remember).there was speculation that pyramids were built by slaves using a kind of ramp system, as in earth was piled up against the lower layers so that blocks could be moved up them - hence the shape (the higher the pyramid got the harder it was to get the earth up there).
Does this sound plausible to ne1 or have u already discussed it?

source??!!??
lol
only joking
anywho pyramids built by CITIZENS
not slaves remember
so that thoery doesnt sway with me

citizens? haven't heard that one. hoping to study egyptology and ancient history at uni this yr, so i'd like to hear about this...

Lol so let me get this straight
you have a theory about how the pyramids were built and you haven't studied egyptology yet ?
doesn't matter girl
neither has egyd and he's got loads of theories

hey, i'm jst young, naive and eager to learn all adds to my charm...