Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Paul Hai

Giza Pyramid construction

168 posts in this topic

Thats an incredible idea.... thanks for sharing. I suspect if no one had previously tried and proven this method of lifting you would have a hard time winning people over to the thought..

Cheers.

Incredible indeed.

And I added it to Granpa's thread about those "Hydrogen balloons" lifting megaliths as nothing but a crazy alternative idea to his, only to find out someone had actually done experiments with kites to lift a miniature Egyptian obelisk (but still weighing 3000 kilos).

The argument of the woman in the video is that the ancient Egyptians must have known the power of the wind because of their sailing boats. We should not forget that they transported huge stones on their boats along the Nile from some stone quarry to the place of destination.

I can perfectly imagine some Egyptian must have thought: "If I can use wind to sail a ship carrying a huge stone, then maybe I can use wind to lift it up from the ground."

ekite_01.jpg

And this I loved most: the "25 seconds" !! Twenty-five seconds to lift a stone weighing 3000 kilos.

If future archeological discoveries prove her theory right, all the former calculations about how long it may have taken to raise a pyramid will go down the drain.

No "aliens", no 'geysers' (heh), no advanced technology from 'Atlantis', just some clever person using available technology borrowed from sailing.

I think this woman hit the jackpot.

And she should visit this guy (yes, I know, this video has been posted a zillion times already):

It appears to me that most people look in the most unbelievable corners to find an answer.

Leave it to practical people, not 'channelers' and other fantasts.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Abramelin for posting wally's video again

i'd first learned of his methods a few years ago but had forgotten his name and website (ironic as the web address is theforgottentechnology)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kmt sesh; thanks for the reply. I have always stated that the AE's were intelligent and creative enough to use whatever they could to get the job done. Ramps to the lower levels are certainly possible and plausible especially if they got some of the internal works and large stones in that way. The eastern side of the GP is now covered with auxillary tombs and mastabas so I cannot see a definitive way of determining a ramp there unless its associated with the causeway which now dives off the cliff to the East. Yet there is no way a straight ramp on that side would be long enough with the correct slope (5 degrees?) to reach anywhere near the top since it would fall off the plateau long before reaching the upper levels. A single ramp on the east seems unlikely. Multiple ramps on all sides also seems unlikely as they would get in the way of keeping the GP square and level. I think the anomoly at that one corner high up is typical of a surveying station or whatever they would call it where the AE engineers made sure things were kept straight and level. There's an interesting article about rope rolls or roll ropes (Loehner's Theory on how the stones went up the side) listed under Building the Great Pyramid on the internet but that also has problems. The same article points out some drawbacks to ramp theories.

The remains of the ramp lie between the three queens' pyramids and the eastern mastaba field. It is best preserved toward the south, where it nears the quarry. By all appearances this was a feeder ramp running from the quarry up to the ramp system at the Great Pyramid itself. No one can know for certain what that ramp system might have looked like, but the idea of a single colossal ramp is outdated. I know you see it on websites and perhaps in questionable literature, but it's not something espoused anymore by Egyptologists.

No doubt there were several feeder ramps approaching the pyramid from several directions, but all theories are unlikely to be proved because the ramps on the pyramid itself are, of course, long gone. I think the issue people bring up about difficulties at the corners is much overplayed, and I don't think this would've thwarted the construction process in any significant way. I'm not sure to which corner anomaly you're referring unless it's the one Bob Brier was exploring a couple of years ago in an article for Archaeology magazine. All this is, is an area where the outermost masonry fell free or was stripped off at some point in the past, revealing a small cavity Brier explored. He was trying to lend some help to Jean-Pierre Houdin and his internal-ramp theory, but nothing resulted from it.

It took archaeologists many years to clear countless tons of debris from the principal quarry to the south of the Great Pyramid. Mark Lehner has commented on the nature of this debris, which consisted of a lot more than just ordinary desert sand. It was compacted gravel and rubble, and in consistency it is pretty much the same debris as excavated from the above-mentioned ramp remains on the east side of the Great Pyramid. In all probability these countless tons of debris in the quarry were the remains of ramps which workers chucked over the quarry edge 4,500 years ago, as the casing stones were being fitted bit by bit onto the Great Pyramid and the ramps disassembled. Based on the volume of fill removed from the quarry, Lehner has estimated that it could represent the fill of any number of ramp systems.

There's no need to convince me one way or the other; I simply don't know how the GP was built. I do know that a device like the one I am proposing would quite possibly be within the AE's capability (but no direct evidence of that) and that there are no technical reasons why it would not work. Perhaps someone with crazy computer skills could make up a mathematical model to test this out without having to do a real replica.

Sometimes some of the coincidences do get me going. The Wiki site showed an Egyptian alphabet with not one but two lenses (eyes, rockers whatever) in it. Looks like they were different colors. One stood for the letter 'r' and the other for the letter 'l'. Could that mean "raise and lower"? Just kidding............ Best just to grab a couple of "Dos Equuis" and move on.........

For a moment there I thought you were serious about the "r" and "l" thing, so I'm glad you clarified that. More importantly, however, there is something on which you and I can always agree: Dos Equis!

dos_equis_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw: here Clemmons tells us they were able to lift a 16 tons (I hope I heard that correctly) obelisk with the use of a kite.

If you watch this video, it took only seconds, and the thing almost jumped up and then stood erect:

More:

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be me, but I think this Clemmons had a genious idea no one ever thought of.

It was on Granpa's thread about Hydrogen Balloons that I just had a crazy idea of using kites to lift heavy rocks.

But I have been a hangglider many years ago (not a very talented one, btw) and that's what made me think of it.

I hope I won't become the "kite guy" like Cladking was the "geyser guy", but I can't stop being amazed about what I see happening with my own eyes in those videos.

Say Kmt_sesh, what do you think of the idea, but especially, what do you think of Clemmons' explanation of some ancient Egyptian artifacts/art works?

Here another part of the documentary/lecture (the last one, I promise):

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone agrees building pyramids could be done using windpower:

Debunking the Nonsense that Kites were Used for Pyramid Construction

Clemmons 'only' proved megaliths (the heaviest she managed to put upright weighed 16 tons) could be raised and blocks weighing many tons could be lifted that way; the obelisk was raised in 25 seconds, the blocks almost shot through the air.

Her idea may be far out, but at least she actually showed it could be done.

And that is more than I can say about other far out ideas.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing of it is that, yes, there are dozens of ways that people with modern knowledge could have moved large stones. And it isn't too much of a stretch to think that maybe even some of the more imaginative Ancient people might have come up with similar ideas. Frankly, it stands in stark contrast to the rather silly claims from some of the more fringe elements that building the pyramids is beyond human ability.

The problem is that these fringe elements tend to confuse the perfectly legitimate Egyptologist claim that "We do not know how they built the pyramids." with the less accurate "We have no concept of how they built the pyramids."

The first is simply a scientific acknowledgement of the limits of our data. The latter is an excuse for any hair-brained whim, regardless of data, support, or logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be me, but I think this Clemmons had a genious idea no one ever thought of.

...

Say Kmt_sesh, what do you think of the idea, but especially, what do you think of Clemmons' explanation of some ancient Egyptian artifacts/art works?

...

Oh, Abramelin, you had to go and ask me. I was trying to remain scarce. I've seen this woman's theory in the past and, no, I'm not sold by it. I'm not even sure it would be all that reliable for raising obelisks (many authentic examples of which are much larger than the one in their experiment), but as for raising and positioning around two million stones for a pyramid? I don't see it.

Working conditions would've been tight in the first place, especially the larger the pyramid got and the deeper the quarry became. Prevailing winds are from the north, so we'd have to imagine in most instances the workmen sailing all kinds of stones from one direction only. It seems unrealistic--for a monument over 700 feet long per side and over 480 feet tall.

I looked at some of the Egyptian icons she was referencing. This is from the first video (the short one). The chart shown at 1:11 looks like nothing more than hieroglyphs (very fuzzy image) so I don't know how that works in Clemmons's favor. At 1:12 is a painting of winged sun disks on a tomb ceiling, and this seems to be a popular theme for her based on the start of the second, longer video (I didn't have much time to watch more than the start of it). She's re-interpreting Egyptian iconography without observing the contexts and meanings the Egyptians themselves supplied. And at 1:14 she refers to the ankh as a carabiner, which gave me a chuckle. The largest ankhs ever found are, I believe, made of blue-glazed ceramics. No large, metal ankhs exist of the sort of tensile strength to which real carabiners would be subjected (this was a Bronze Age civilization, remember).

Please don't hate me, but I'm not a fan of Clemmons's theory. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that second video shows that this idea is actually so dangerous that without advanced organization and safety precautions it would cause more problems then it was worth. Imagine a gust of wind grabbing ten or twenty kites and the blocks attached to them, and plowing through hundreds of workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Abramelin, you had to go and ask me. I was trying to remain scarce. I've seen this woman's theory in the past and, no, I'm not sold by it. I'm not even sure it would be all that reliable for raising obelisks (many authentic examples of which are much larger than the one in their experiment), but as for raising and positioning around two million stones for a pyramid? I don't see it.

Working conditions would've been tight in the first place, especially the larger the pyramid got and the deeper the quarry became. Prevailing winds are from the north, so we'd have to imagine in most instances the workmen sailing all kinds of stones from one direction only. It seems unrealistic--for a monument over 700 feet long per side and over 480 feet tall.

I looked at some of the Egyptian icons she was referencing. This is from the first video (the short one). The chart shown at 1:11 looks like nothing more than hieroglyphs (very fuzzy image) so I don't know how that works in Clemmons's favor. At 1:12 is a painting of winged sun disks on a tomb ceiling, and this seems to be a popular theme for her based on the start of the second, longer video (I didn't have much time to watch more than the start of it). She's re-interpreting Egyptian iconography without observing the contexts and meanings the Egyptians themselves supplied. And at 1:14 she refers to the ankh as a carabiner, which gave me a chuckle. The largest ankhs ever found are, I believe, made of blue-glazed ceramics. No large, metal ankhs exist of the sort of tensile strength to which real carabiners would be subjected (this was a Bronze Age civilization, remember).

Please don't hate me, but I'm not a fan of Clemmons's theory. :innocent:

I agree that she should have stayed away from trying to interpret Egyptian art to fit her theory of kites, but her argument - they knew about sailing boats with heavy loads along the Nile, so someone might have gotten the idea to use a 'sail' on land - doesn't sound that crazy to me. They had the technology, they had the material, they had experience with windpower.

And the technique she uses may not be very practical, but she did prove you can lift and transport heavy blocks and monoliths, and in a very short time. I think that it is possible to develop a technique to have more control over those kites.

++++

EDIT:

And talking about 'realistic': how realistic is it to assume a Pharaoh ordered to build a pyramid to fullfil his megalomaniac dreams, but that it would take some 20 years to do it, using conventional/accepted techniques?

Think "Kim-Il-Sung"... suppose he wanted a huge monument erected in his honor, and then the architects say, "Sure, give us 20+ years, and we will fix it for you."

Heh.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that second video shows that this idea is actually so dangerous that without advanced organization and safety precautions it would cause more problems then it was worth. Imagine a gust of wind grabbing ten or twenty kites and the blocks attached to them, and plowing through hundreds of workers.

Well, like I told Kmt, I think it is possible to develop a more practical, a more controlled, and yes, also a safer way of handling stones using kites.

Clemmons only managed to prove you can lift and transport heavy stone blocks and raise an obelisk. Who knows what they will come up with within a couple of years? Didn't she ask for funds in one of those videos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have hijacked Lakeview rud's thread/hypothesis.

Maybe some admin is willing to split this thread?

++

Wait, it was Paul Hai's thread.

Oh well.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. her argument - they knew about sailing boats with heavy loads along the Nile, so someone might have gotten the idea to use a 'sail' on land - doesn't sound that crazy to me. They had the technology, they had the material, they had experience with windpower.

.

so i guess in the evolution of this technique maybe they did use simple sails at first affixed over the sleds under the blocks being transported. just enough to take most of the strain off the teams pulling the blocks around. it would certainly make it a lot easier and speed things up.

you can imagine the guys, once they got a block onto a ship and sailing across the nile, thinking "now this is the way to transport 2tonne stone blocks. how can we do this on land?"

as they got the hang of manoeuvring the blocks around in this fashion the sail could have eventually developed into the more efficient kite configurations - depending on the situation a sail might have been of better advantage than a kite and visa versa

who knows of course, but seems plausible

Edited by blackdogsun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that she should have stayed away from trying to interpret Egyptian art to fit her theory of kites, but her argument - they knew about sailing boats with heavy loads along the Nile, so someone might have gotten the idea to use a 'sail' on land - doesn't sound that crazy to me. They had the technology, they had the material, they had experience with windpower.

And the technique she uses may not be very practical, but she did prove you can lift and transport heavy blocks and monoliths, and in a very short time. I think that it is possible to develop a technique to have more control over those kites.

++++

I should make it clear that while I don't buy Clemmons's theory, I certainly don't consider her crazy. She is obviously a highly intelligent and well-educated person. Her theory doesn't approach cladkingism, by any stretch. You are correct that the basic constituent parts are there, including the Egyptians' mastery at producing linen sales for their riverine vessels. Still, for me it's a stretch to go from there to using kites to lift and position countless large blocks of masonry. It's not evidenced at all in Egyptian iconography or depictions at any point in pharaonic history, so that's a "biggy" for me.

That's where I'm coming from. It's all about evidence. Nevertheless, I concede that Clemmons's theory is far better grounded in plausibility than nearly all of the half-baked, hair-brained alternative crap most people invent. We've seen quite a lot of that here, of course.

EDIT:

And talking about 'realistic': how realistic is it to assume a Pharaoh ordered to build a pyramid to fullfil his megalomaniac dreams, but that it would take some 20 years to do it, using conventional/accepted techniques?

Think "Kim-Il-Sung"... suppose he wanted a huge monument erected in his honor, and then the architects say, "Sure, give us 20+ years, and we will fix it for you."

Heh.

.

You might laugh, but using some modern despot as an example might not be too dar off the mark. As for North Korea, I might use as an example the recently deceased, comic-book-quality leader Kim Jong-il. And while Kim Jong-il is at best a pint-sized, silly footnote in the pages of history, his style of megalomania might well have been similar to the personalities of a lot of ancient Egyptian kings. Some of these kings were raised to believe they were indeed divine and considerably above the rabble of humanity they would one day rule--the best example might perchance be Ramesses II, who was many times more powerful than Khufu ever was. Still, the ideology of the pharaonic state was such that whatever a powerful king wanted, he damn well got. Ancient Egypt was hardly the blissful utopia too many historians have painted it to be, but from the perspective of several thousand years later, we can appreciate such lasting remnants of pharaonic megalomania as the Great Pyramid. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it's been said before (pretty sure I've read it), but wouldn't it make sense to build ramps out of the material you were building with? So then, when done with a particular area, just pick up a stone under you and lift? That way utilizing everything and leaving no waste?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it's been said before (pretty sure I've read it), but wouldn't it make sense to build ramps out of the material you were building with? So then, when done with a particular area, just pick up a stone under you and lift? That way utilizing everything and leaving no waste?

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Ain't nothing new. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it's been said before (pretty sure I've read it), but wouldn't it make sense to build ramps out of the material you were building with? So then, when done with a particular area, just pick up a stone under you and lift? That way utilizing everything and leaving no waste?

And as close to the real thing as we can get. If you look at the quarries you will see that about 10-15% of the material extracted was waste, and that with the sand that was everywhere around there would make some nice ramps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should make it clear that while I don't buy Clemmons's theory, I certainly don't consider her crazy. She is obviously a highly intelligent and well-educated person. Her theory doesn't approach cladkingism, by any stretch. You are correct that the basic constituent parts are there, including the Egyptians' mastery at producing linen sales for their riverine vessels. Still, for me it's a stretch to go from there to using kites to lift and position countless large blocks of masonry. It's not evidenced at all in Egyptian iconography or depictions at any point in pharaonic history, so that's a "biggy" for me.

That's where I'm coming from. It's all about evidence. Nevertheless, I concede that Clemmons's theory is far better grounded in plausibility than nearly all of the half-baked, hair-brained alternative crap most people invent. We've seen quite a lot of that here, of course.

You might laugh, but using some modern despot as an example might not be too dar off the mark. As for North Korea, I might use as an example the recently deceased, comic-book-quality leader Kim Jong-il. And while Kim Jong-il is at best a pint-sized, silly footnote in the pages of history, his style of megalomania might well have been similar to the personalities of a lot of ancient Egyptian kings. Some of these kings were raised to believe they were indeed divine and considerably above the rabble of humanity they would one day rule--the best example might perchance be Ramesses II, who was many times more powerful than Khufu ever was. Still, the ideology of the pharaonic state was such that whatever a powerful king wanted, he damn well got. Ancient Egypt was hardly the blissful utopia too many historians have painted it to be, but from the perspective of several thousand years later, we can appreciate such lasting remnants of pharaonic megalomania as the Great Pyramid. ^_^

I used the example of Kim-Il-Sung - or any of the other Kims in North Korea - to point out that these guys are not the 'waiting for things to eventually happen' guys, lol. They order something to be done, and they want it done yesterday or 'else'... and not in 20 years time. A pharaoh may have had that same attitude and most probably would also not have been willing to wait that long for a pyramid to be build, and so the builders may have used a more efficient and faster technique than the generally accepted techniques we learn of.

==

A question, Kmt: in what way did the ancient Egyptian depict the wind? What gods and/or what symbols and/or what hieroglyphs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin; no need to worry about me. I'm just looking for answers like everyone else. There's a new thread about "Building Pyramids thru Documentaries" thats very interesting. Kmt-sesh will see that the basic premise is an external ramp to a certain height (43 meters) after which an internal ramp takes over to complete the job. A few nice things about it. The outer casing stones are placed as the pyramid is constructed..darn good idea there; lets the builders keep everything square and level. The architect who's theory it is has enough thought into it that we should be able to check some of his theory by finding the additional rooms he has suggested are in the GP. Also external ramp to the 43 meter level means the large granite blocks can come up in a standard fashion. Finally it seems that all of his theories have some decent references to other structures built at the same time or prior to construction of the GP.

About the only thing that still causes me a problem is that we're talking a relatively narrow ramp which means the speed of the stones moving up is somewhat limited but perhaps thats not as big a problem as it seems since the great majority of the stones would be below the internal ramp level.

I look forward to seeing more on this.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin; no need to worry about me. I'm just looking for answers like everyone else. There's a new thread about "Building Pyramids thru Documentaries" thats very interesting. Kmt-sesh will see that the basic premise is an external ramp to a certain height (43 meters) after which an internal ramp takes over to complete the job. A few nice things about it. The outer casing stones are placed as the pyramid is constructed..darn good idea there; lets the builders keep everything square and level. The architect who's theory it is has enough thought into it that we should be able to check some of his theory by finding the additional rooms he has suggested are in the GP. Also external ramp to the 43 meter level means the large granite blocks can come up in a standard fashion. Finally it seems that all of his theories have some decent references to other structures built at the same time or prior to construction of the GP.

About the only thing that still causes me a problem is that we're talking a relatively narrow ramp which means the speed of the stones moving up is somewhat limited but perhaps thats not as big a problem as it seems since the great majority of the stones would be below the internal ramp level.

I look forward to seeing more on this.............

If they placed the outer casing stones while still constructing the pyramid, and then sliding new blocks up a thus smooth side of the pyramid using windpower Clemmons' style, then that would be a logical thing to do.

You wouldn't even need ramps the size of the pyramid.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of kites/sails to build a pyramid seems more of an indictment on the AE than a compliment.

They adapt a sail to perform, or assist in, the heavy lifting in construction, but see no other application? Why wouldn't they adapt it for military purposes for example?

Edited by Mangoze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

A question, Kmt: in what way did the ancient Egyptian depict the wind? What gods and/or what symbols and/or what hieroglyphs?

Wind itself was not much depicted. I can't think of distinct examples off hand. The god of the wind was Shu, one of the principal deities of the Heliopolis Ennead, who was also the god of light and atmosphere--basically anything in the air between the earth (the god Geb) and the heavens (the goddess Nut). Shu was their father and kept them separated.

The ancient Egyptian word for wind was swH (pronounced something like the English word "sue" with an aspirated "H" on the end). It's composed typically of three hieroglyphs with the determinative of a mast and sail (here's a pretty good example). This sail glyph, designated P5 in Gardiner's standard list, was common for words associated with movements of air, including wind and breathing.

Now, in writing all of this, I hope I'm not encouraging you too much with your kites! If you start to interpret the Pyramid Texts as an instruction manual on building pyramids with kites, I won't play with you anymore. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind itself was not much depicted. I can't think of distinct examples off hand. The god of the wind was Shu, one of the principal deities of the Heliopolis Ennead, who was also the god of light and atmosphere--basically anything in the air between the earth (the god Geb) and the heavens (the goddess Nut). Shu was their father and kept them separated.

The ancient Egyptian word for wind was swH (pronounced something like the English word "sue" with an aspirated "H" on the end). It's composed typically of three hieroglyphs with the determinative of a mast and sail (here's a pretty good example). This sail glyph, designated P5 in Gardiner's standard list, was common for words associated with movements of air, including wind and breathing.

Now, in writing all of this, I hope I'm not encouraging you too much with your kites! If you start to interpret the Pyramid Texts as an instruction manual on building pyramids with kites, I won't play with you anymore. :lol:

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind itself was not much depicted. I can't think of distinct examples off hand. The god of the wind was Shu, one of the principal deities of the Heliopolis Ennead, who was also the god of light and atmosphere--basically anything in the air between the earth (the god Geb) and the heavens (the goddess Nut). Shu was their father and kept them separated.

The ancient Egyptian word for wind was swH (pronounced something like the English word "sue" with an aspirated "H" on the end). It's composed typically of three hieroglyphs with the determinative of a mast and sail (here's a pretty good example). This sail glyph, designated P5 in Gardiner's standard list, was common for words associated with movements of air, including wind and breathing.

Now, in writing all of this, I hope I'm not encouraging you too much with your kites! If you start to interpret the Pyramid Texts as an instruction manual on building pyramids with kites, I won't play with you anymore. :lol:

Don't worry about those kites, it's windpower I'm talking about.

But thanks for the post and the hieroglyph.

Now this:

Windspire Turbine, produced by Mariah Power is an affordable, smart and very quiet innovative wind turbine. Inspired by a 3000 years old Egyptian windmill design, the Windspire proved to be competitive with modern wind turbines. At only 30 feet tall and 4 feet wide, the Windspire 1.2 kW wind turbine is distinguished by its sleek propeller-free design and ultra quiet operation.

http://2windturbine.blogspot.com/

How did the AE depict a vertical axis windmill?

Bceause from what I understand searching the web, the ancient Egyptians did have windmills, or socalled VAWT in the preferred language used in the USA (=abbreviations).

+++

EDIT:

And what is this guy doing here, kite-surfing??

pharao.jpg

herbstwind_1039065.jpg

:w00t:

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this post.

I was unaware any understanding of the Petrie rocker had been established. I'm, however, at a lack to find any real detail about the object. I thought it was much smaller and assumed it was some part of a sun dial that would brake the day into shifts (assuming that it was set to do this during that inundation period).

Also, there looks like there are hieroglyphs on the side reading from right to left...or am I imagining things?

Anyway, Flinders Petrie was an amazing man. I wonder if he ever thought he would become part of the myths and legends himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.