Explain to me 20 years for Khufu

[cladking]

Clearly this is not true, based on modern construction techniques. If it was, you'd see water pumps in every large construction site.

Do a little research on the force required to pump water. It's in fact not NEARLY 100% efficient. Far from it in fact. And as the height grows, the inefficiency grows.

Just do your homework and you'll see why they use cranes and not water pumps for modern construction.

The reason they don't use counterweights now is two fold.

The primary reason is they don't build pyramids. When you

have a straight up shot to the top and a crane the easiest

way is a crane. The other reason is we don't stack up 6 1/ 2

million tons of material like this anymore.

I might also point out that there is no ballast on top of

a skyscraper. Material goes up but very little comes down.

[cladking]

The sides of the pyramid are actually not straight. They are slightly concave, but not bowed. The is a crease at the center of each side. So slight is this crease that it wasnt discovered until aerial photos were taken. It was compensated for with the casing stones so that the finished structure didnt exhibit this trait until the casing stones were stripped. All 3 major pyrmids at Giza have this feature, and no other pyramid in Egypt (that I have been able to find) has it. No one has any suitable reason for why this was done. Even mainstream has no answer.

G2 doesn't have it. The Red Pyramid does.

I don't believe it's a certainty that this was hidden

by the casing stone but you're right that this is the

common belief.

[Qwasz]

So is there any mainstream theory as to how Baalbek was built, in particular how the Trilithon was created?

These three stone blocks are the largest building blocks ever used by any human beings anywhere in the world. Each one is 70 feet long, 14 feet high, 10 feet thick, and weigh around 800 tons. This is larger than the incredible columns created for the Temple of Jupiter, which are also 70 feet tall but measure a mere 7 feet -- and they weren't constructed from single pieces of stone. In each of the above two images, you can see people standing by the trilithon to provide reference for how large they are: in the top image a person is standing to the far left and in the bottom image a person is sitting on a stone about in the middle.

Beneath the trilithon are another six huge building blocks, each 35 feet long and thus also larger than most building blocks used by humans anywhere else. No one knows how these stone blocks were cut, transported from the nearby quarry, and fit so precisely together.

From http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousplaces/ig/Baalbek-Temples-Lebanon/Baalbek-Trilithon-Stone-Blocks.htm

Seems like if you could do this kind of stuff, you could stack 6 million tons of limestone and granite as well.

If anyone doubts that there is information we are missing, they are in denial. The simple fact that no suitable explanation exists for this site is proof that we're missing information. I personally find it hard to imagine that all we're missing is some clever bit of thinking by bronze-age civilizations that allow them to move 800 ton blocks or stack 6 million tons. They just had some little "trick" that we havent thought up... I just have a hard time swallowing that.

[Abramelin]

Baalbek has been discussed ad nauseum here. Search for it on this site.

But I'll save you the trouble:

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html

(I took me about 5 seconds)

Edited May 31, 2010 by Abramelin

[+DieChecker]

Abramelin's link covers the main point I wanted to raise with Baalbek, that the quarry was uphill and the blocks were probably just guided down to the temple. Gravity did part of the work for them. If the Romans used some kind of rollers or bearings or libricant, of even just the Roman winch from the link, it would not have taken any large amount of effort or time to move these blocks.

[+DieChecker]

My own opinion for what it's worth is that they could

have gotten each course square and almost perfectly al-

ligned north and south with extreme effort. However I

don't believe they could get the course centered on the

one below. The pyramid would get off leaning to one

side. It was over 200 courses to the top and these er-

rors would not not cancel each other out and would ac-

cumulate. When they got done the structure would have

a bend or multiple bends. They wouldn't even know until

they spent years removing the ramps.

It seems a simple matter of using rods of a known set length, maybe hundreds of them across the face of the pyramid, to keep all the stones the same distance from the edge. That way, if you have the foundation base stones correct, you just can not get the next course wrong. Thus the pyramid would not lean or be bent, unless the Egyptians did not know how to use a rod as a measure.

[+DieChecker]

The sides of the pyramid are actually not straight. They are slightly concave, but not bowed. The is a crease at the center of each side. So slight is this crease that it wasnt discovered until aerial photos were taken. It was compensated for with the casing stones so that the finished structure didnt exhibit this trait until the casing stones were stripped. All 3 major pyrmids at Giza have this feature, and no other pyramid in Egypt (that I have been able to find) has it. No one has any suitable reason for why this was done. Even mainstream has no answer.

I've suggested that Cladking's "lines" on the pyramids, that go basically up the center of each side, are due to the stones settling over thousands of years. Settling would tend to show more toward the center of each face, so that is what I suggest is the reason for the slight concavity.

[cladking]

It seems a simple matter of using rods of a known set length, maybe hundreds of them across the face of the pyramid, to keep all the stones the same distance from the edge. That way, if you have the foundation base stones correct, you just can not get the next course wrong. Thus the pyramid would not lean or be bent, unless the Egyptians did not know how to use a rod as a measure.

You may well be right.

My thinking is that the courses and stones are not uniform

that you couldn't just center a course on the one below. Some

stones are right on the diagonal line and some aren't. How do

you know where the diagonal line is if the stone below isn't

centered right on it.

I don't think that having to center each course would be a

minor point anyway. It might have taken a whole year of star

watching to lay out the pyramid so perfectly. They certainly

couldn't do that with each course.

[Qwasz]

I've suggested that Cladking's "lines" on the pyramids, that go basically up the center of each side, are due to the stones settling over thousands of years. Settling would tend to show more toward the center of each face, so that is what I suggest is the reason for the slight concavity.

Stone blocks do not settle. The concave sides were done that way intentionally.

[cladking]

Stone blocks do not settle. The concave sides were done that way intentionally.

I think Diechecker is referring to the grooves in the

middle of each side. These are fairly deep top to bot-

tom and could not be a result of settling either. If

the stones could settle then they'd settle much more at

the bottom than the top. But these lines are fairly un-

iform and necessarily a built in feature of the pyramid.

[+DieChecker]

Stone blocks do not settle. The concave sides were done that way intentionally.

Anything not solid will settle. With more then a million blocks, there will be plenty of settling.

[cladking]

Anything not solid will settle. With more then a million blocks, there will be plenty of settling.

It is "solid". The pyramid has nearly the same density

as solid limestone. Even if it didn't if the stones settled

they would have to fracture and tyhe whole pyramid would be

a pile of rubble.

As they build higher the stones would distort slightly from

the increasing weight being placed on them but they wouldn't

"settle" or collapse.

There have been many earthquakes over the years and at least

one of these caused some structural problems but they couldn't

have caused the grooves in the side without causing much more

widespread damage. Picture a continuum of earthquake damage

to this. Can you really see lines in the middle of each side

anywhere on this continuum?

[Qwasz]

Anything not solid will settle. With more then a million blocks, there will be plenty of settling.

Limestone blocks are indeed solid, and therefore will not settle. Talk to any structural engineer and they will explain why the creases are not "settling".

[+DieChecker]

It is solid in the same way a pile of gravel is solid. There is very little binding agent involved. The blocks are held in place by gravity, and gravity is what causes settling.

Brick walls, foundations and other structures will settle and crack. They only crack because they are bonded together, otherwise the individual blocks would move around due to heating and cooling. The pyramids have space between the blocks to allow for the expansion that would otherwise cause it to fall apart, but still each individual block over thousands and thousands of years is going to move a little here and a little there. That is 1.66 Billion sunrises and sunsets. Blazing hot days, and freezing cold nights. I think some settling would occur.

Edited June 1, 2010 by DieChecker

[cladking]

The weight of the pyramid will even deform the earth's crust where

it's sitting. I don't disagree that there will be some settling

and relative movement of stone, but I certainly disagree that a deep

groove down the middle of each side can be a result of this process.

[ShadowSot]

The stones are solid, the pyramid is not.

Parts are either in-filled with ruble or hollow.

[OldTimeRadio]

Is there any way the pyramid stones could have been raised with wind power?

I don't believe the ancient Egyptians were aware of the concept of the propeller/curved spinning blade, but if they were aware they could have constructed crude windmills or wind turbines which could not only have lifted the blocks but swung them into place.

[cladking]

Is there any way the pyramid stones could have been raised with wind power?

I don't believe the ancient Egyptians were aware of the concept of the propeller/curved spinning blade, but if they were aware they could have constructed crude windmills or wind turbines which could not only have lifted the blocks but swung them into place.

Sure.

There are several ways it could have been done with wind.

The most obvious is with a large "sail" in the various boat

pits. These could capture huge force of the wind and used

to lift stones. They'd have to have a sail that was easily

taken in.

I have a lot of doubt this was actually used since there

would be a lot of days without wind and the best days would

be too dusty to work probably.

There are lots of ways to catch wind but somebody already

decided that ramps were the only technology the ancients were

sophisticated enough to grasp.

[Qwasz]

It is solid in the same way a pile of gravel is solid. There is very little binding agent involved. The blocks are held in place by gravity, and gravity is what causes settling.

Brick walls, foundations and other structures will settle and crack. They only crack because they are bonded together, otherwise the individual blocks would move around due to heating and cooling. The pyramids have space between the blocks to allow for the expansion that would otherwise cause it to fall apart, but still each individual block over thousands and thousands of years is going to move a little here and a little there. That is 1.66 Billion sunrises and sunsets. Blazing hot days, and freezing cold nights. I think some settling would occur.

If the blocks were all dumped in a pile, then yes, there would be settling and it would act like a "pile of gravel". But the pyramid is not a pile of limestone blocks. The blocks are ordered and stacked.

Just because gravity causes settling does not mean anything acted upon by gravity will settle. You're violating the most fundamental rule of logic.

Again I refer you to your local structural engineer would should be able to help you understand.

Why do you think none of the mainstream literature suggests settling for the creases?

This is really a pointless debate though, if you want to believe the creases are settling, go ahead.

[Harte]

DMJM as far as I'm concerned is completely debunked.

This is obviously mere uninformed opinion, since you have prented neither your own nor anyone else's information that would debunk DMJM.

And yes I'm aware of their 5 year estimate (see my previous posts on the subject), it's based in no real science at all, which is the reason they didn't publish their data or their calculations, only a brief 10 page summary...

It is my understanding that their findings were indeed published. The article was a summary. Civil Engineering Magazine, a trade journal, publishes stories of interest to their trade readership, not complete engineering studies.

Show me the peer reviewed publications of logistical estimates and we'll talk. But DMJM, that's just a bunch of idle speculation done (not to sell books like the fringe authors) to help promote their consulting firm and get free press in the civil engineering magazines (not journals).

I thought it was you that was confused because it "didn't add up" to you.

Go find it yourself. It's not on the internet AFAIK.

Also, DMJM has no need whatsoever to promote themselves in any trade magazine. Are you under the impression that such a story might result in more business for DMJM? If so, no wonder you are so confused, exhibiting as you do a complete lack of understanding of the workings of industry in general and engineering consulting in particular.

DMJM does the same kind of "science" as the atomic reactor guy. Both theories are baseless speculation that goes way beyond the bounds of reality.

Given that neither does "science" at all, I don't see your point.

However, it seems to me that there should, in any thinking mind, be a very apparent difference between a claim that the Egyptians built nuclear reactors and a claim that Egyptians dragged large rocks up and stacked them in a pile.

Oh well. It's certainly not worth my time to try and help you when you make such ridiculous statements as I have quoted here.

Harte

Edited June 1, 2010 by Harte

[cladking]

It's like Harte and I read different reports. The one I read

in the link he provided said nothing at all. If you distilled

it down it would be nothing but hot air, wind, and vacuum.

Here's the most important sentence;

"We determined, however, that some type of

ramp structure was probably used given the

remains of ramps at other sites and our

assessment of available construction methods"

For those who don't speak egyptology this say that the

ancients weren't smart enough to build or operate any-

thing more complicated than a ramp. It says the authors

of the report weren't smart enough actually investigate

or calculate whether or not a ramp might actually work

and they must be right because the egyptologists who paid

for the work told them there's proof ramps were used on

pyramids made a thousand years later.

[Harte]

It's like Harte and I read different reports. The one I read

in the link he provided said nothing at all. If you distilled

it down it would be nothing but hot air, wind, and vacuum.

Here's the most important sentence;

"We determined, however, that some type of

ramp structure was probably used given the

remains of ramps at other sites and our

assessment of available construction methods"

For those who don't speak egyptology this say that the

ancients weren't smart enough to build or operate any-

thing more complicated than a ramp. It says the authors

of the report weren't smart enough actually investigate

or calculate whether or not a ramp might actually work

and they must be right because the egyptologists who paid

for the work told them there's proof ramps were used on

pyramids made a thousand years later.

Again, Cladking, you demonstrate that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the actual facts that have been established.

Ramp leading to Khufru's pyramid:

On the South side of the paved road, South of Khufu's pyramid, we excavated down about 2.50 meters and found another part of the ramp. This part is in line with the Eastern and Western wall and is of similar construction. This discovery proves that the ramp led from the quarry to the Southwest comer of the pyramid and was made of stone rubble and Tafla.(see plans 2,3) The ramp rises to about 30 meters above the pyramid's base at its Southwest comer. The ramp would have leaned against the pyramid's faces as they rose. Somewhat like accretion layers wrapped around the pyramid with a roadway on top. The weight of this ramp is borne by the ground around the pyramid. Traffic could move along the top of this structure as both pyramid and ramp rose in tandem. The top of the pyramid could be reached with only one and one quarter turns. The slope would rise with each turn from a reasonable 65 degrees, for the first section, to as much as 18 degrees for the last climb to the apex. 19

PDF including information about a ramp used in construction of Menkaure's mortuary temple.

Menkaure was the successor to Khafre, and another pharoah from the 4th dynasty (just like Khufu.)

Ramp remains found in various places around Egypt:

Remains of ramps have been discovered at Meidum, Dahshur, Abu Ghurab and Abusir, thus supporting the claims of Siculus. Notable also are the Sinki pyramid at South Abydos and the Sekhemkhet pyramid where ramp remains, and even complete ramps have been discovered. Other ramp remains may have also been discovered at Giza, where excavators from the Cairo University excavated two parallel walls that may have formed the retaining framework of a ramp.

More on remains of ramps:

The most straightforward method would have been the so-called linear ramp, probably used in the Third-Dynasty pyramid of Sekhemkhet, at Saqqara. Such ramps, however, were probably rarely used, because they would have had to be very wide. An alternative would have been the 'staircase ramp', a steep and narrow set of steps leading up one face of the pyramid, traces of which have been found at the Sinki, Meidum, Giza, Abu Ghurob and Lisht pyramids.

Same link:

Traces of 'interior ramps' have survived inside the remains of the pyramids of Sahura, Nyuserra and Neferirkara, at Abusir, and of Pepi II, at Saqqara, but some kind of exterior ramp would still have been needed after the interior was filled in.

Sinki pyramid ramps (3rd Dynasty)near Abydos:

The Sinki Pyramid

This pyramid is located near the village of Naga el-Khalifa, about five miles south of Abydos. It should be noted that occasionally, all of these small pyramids are referred to as "Sinki Pyramids". This pyramid was first discovered by Charles Wilbour and Gaston Maspero, and a century later investigated by Swelim and Gunther Dreyer. Like the Zawiyet el-Meiyitin pyramid, its four meter high remains are aligned with the Nile river. Likewise, it is made of rough limestone bound by a mortar of clay and sand. However, we here find the remains of ramps built of mudbrick with a filler of mud, rubble and sand. These ramps originally led to the second step of the pyramid. We also find fourteen graves from the Old and New Kingdoms nearby.

Sinki again:

An aerial view of layer step pyramid Sinki (click to see diagram) at Abydos shows the construction ramps on the 4 sides of the unfinished monument. They were starting from the desert surface over the foundation of the outer facing (layer 3) and leaning on the nucleus (layers 2, 1, and the core). Redrawn by Nabil Swelim 1990.

Same site shows a pic of construction ramps for an unfinished Giza pyramid.

There is plenty more evidence of ramp usage in Ancient Egypt contemporary with the 4th Dynasty or, at the very least, contemporary with the Old Kingdom.

IOW, not "a thousand years later."

Not that you would believe it if I posted it. That's why I will stop here.

Harte

[ShadowSot]

Not that you would believe it if I posted it. That's why I will stop here.

Hey, I'm taking notes, keep on.

Edited June 1, 2010 by ShadowSot

[cladking]

Harte;

I appreciate your effort.

You see these experts saying things like "might have" or "could

have" and see the changes in their thinking over the years and

believe it must add up to a pretty solid theory based on sound

evidence. If you strip away all the verbiage and the guesses

there just isn't anything underneath.

We are mostly all aware of the actual facts and have our own un-

derstanding of what they mean. What it always comes down to for

me is that there is no contemporary evidence that ramps were used

to lift stones onto the pyramids. Where one would expect massive

evidence there is a void. Where one would expect untold thousands

of workers and many hundreds of overseers there are few workers and

almost no overseers.

If they had used ramps as all these experts you quote theorize, I

would expect a lot of evidence including evidence built right into

the structure itself. Instead all we see are the horizontal and ver-

tical lines indicative of a building process that operated only in

the horizontal and vertical planes. Like all the evidence this is

inconsistent with ramps. This is not an opinion but a fact. Yes, these

facts could be irrelevent but opinion underlies the concept of ramps

and fact underlies the concept of straight up pulling. There is also

the fact that the pyramid is surrounded by a device that DID collect water

and channel it to at least two points on the cliff face. This is sim-

ply and wholly inexplicable in orthodox terms. But it's still a fifteen

acre fact that is consistent with pulling stones straight up the pyr-

amid. It's also consistent with the builders whose words suggest that

the ka of the king was built with ladders (straight up the side) and ropes,

and boats, and cables, and all manner of physical processes which don't

include the word "ramp".

If you believe professional opinion then your links are as good as they

get but they do not establish ramps as a means of raising stone. If you

read them closely and skeptically you'll see they are all founded on the

premise that the ancients could only have used ramps and that ramps have

been found on and by later pyramids and that ramps have been found near

the great pyramids.

Edited June 1, 2010 by cladking

[Qwasz]

Are you under the impression that such a story might result in more business for DMJM? If so, no wonder you are so confused, exhibiting as you do a complete lack of understanding of the workings of industry in general and engineering consulting in particular.

That's funny, since I'm an engineering consultant. I'm sorry Harte but it is YOU who has not idea about how engineering consulting works.

The truth is, it's not much different than branding in any other capital market. You create an image of your organization which is as favorable as possible, find ways to get your message, your logo, and your brand burned (branded) into the minds of consumers.

DMJM's Egypt "work" is just a silly stunt used to help them produce a brand. It probably worked.

Also, just because something calls itself a "journal" does not mean it's a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Many high-end MAGAZINES call themselves journals. It doesnt make them such. The Wall Street Journal is in fact a newspaper (and I guess now an online media outlet). It is certainly not part of the scientific literature.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Qwasz