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 1
Still Waters

Accepted pyramid building theories 'wrong'

102 posts in this topic

A Newport engineer says his discovery about how the Egyptian pyramids were built threatens to shake up the world of archaeology. Peter James revealed to Sarah Dickins how he thinks the accepted theories about pyramid building are wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...-wales-25412540

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it involve aliens?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is excellent. I saw the documentary of this guy and his company doing the restoration work in the Step Pyramid. This man knows what he is doing and talking about. This is a theory from reality, not fantasy. We need to wait to see all his theory before making any conclusions. It may he is correct about some pyramid construction and not others, though this looks very promising, and NO aliens :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it involve aliens?

No, and if the gentleman would have kept up with the development in archeology, the inside-out building is one of the accepted theories (though not mainstream) and has been proposed decades ago.

And as far as revolutionary: Not much would change... so instead of putting down the outer stones first they put down the inner stones... so what?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of ramps far inside the pyramid as he proposes is improbable. It would require

most of the weight of the structure to be taken up inside and then the only means to fill the

void would be hauling it up the outside and dumping down into the chasm. Perhaps his idea

is more workable idea than what is presented.

I do like this part though;

"He adds that had that happened, there would still be signs that the ramps had been there."

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an inkling of this years ago ... just sayin' ... now I'm just waiting for that 'revelation that the 'air shafts' were just to keep track of the chambers and keep them centered as the whole structure was piling up ... and the twenty years time frame is totally impossible ... no matter how the current theories want to pretty up the numbers ...

~edit - bold

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reporting of a "new theory" is almost as haired-brained as that Idiot group from NC reporting the patch on the Pars Virginiae map like it was new.

--Jaylemurph

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that an engineer who has carried out contracts for the Egyptian government in pyramid restoration for the past 18 years, would have a better idea about this than the rest of us sitting on our butts and pontificating from our homes. He is clearly not a nutter or some fantasist, and even though the idea he has it not hot off the press, I would have thought it sensible to read his full report, when it appears, before trashing him. Or is there a new commandment "Thou shalt not have any new ideas about pyramids unless approved by Mark Lehner", and that is no disrespect to Lehner, or Petrie, or Romer for that matter.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that an engineer who has carried out contracts for the Egyptian government in pyramid restoration for the past 18 years, would have a better idea about this than the rest of us sitting on our butts and pontificating from our homes. He is clearly not a nutter or some fantasist, and even though the idea he has it not hot off the press, I would have thought it sensible to read his full report, when it appears, before trashing him. Or is there a new commandment "Thou shalt not have any new ideas about pyramids unless approved by Mark Lehner", and that is no disrespect to Lehner, or Petrie, or Romer for that matter.

Refer to Post #4, as "the rest of us" are doing no such thing. Many Egyptologists and laymen alike know that Houdin's theory is, in the least, one of many possible ways the GP was constructed. And more often than not those you mention as "pontificating from our homes" are of the variety that don't have a meaningful knowledgebase of AE society to begin making such pronouncements with, yet feel the need to share their ignorance with everyone else as if said ignorance is a fact.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article doesn't say that he's spent 18 years working on pyramids. He's spent that time working on various other monuments and has done work on the step pyramid, not the pyramids at Giza.

I ntice from the article he's made this announcement before bringing it up with any archaeologists.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refer to Post #4, as "the rest of us" are doing no such thing. Many Egyptologists and laymen alike know that Houdin's theory is, in the least, one of many possible ways the GP was constructed. And more often than not those you mention as "pontificating from our homes" are of the variety that don't have a meaningful knowledgebase of AE society to begin making such pronouncements with, yet feel the need to share their ignorance with everyone else as if said ignorance is a fact.

cormac

Who is ignorant?, who does not have a "meanigful knowledgebase of AE society"? and who needs to "share their ignorance"?

For myself, and until anything more compelling appears, I rather like the Houdin theory. Still seems odd that this guy from Wales is jumped on before he even has a chance to have his say. He is hardly in the fringe league, is he....

Edited by Kaa-Tzik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article doesn't say that he's spent 18 years working on pyramids. He's spent that time working on various other monuments and has done work on the step pyramid, not the pyramids at Giza.

I ntice from the article he's made this announcement before bringing it up with any archaeologists.

No one has said he has worked on the GP, and his company has worked on Egyptian monuments for 18 years. It may well not have been him at every single site, but he was certainly at the Step Pyramid, and he has the 18 years of experience of his company to use. And why does he have to consult archeologists first?, how do you know he has not had conversations with archeologists and Egyptologists. After 18 years working on Egyptian monuments I would be very surprised if he has not spoken many times with them. He is a structural engineer, can he not make statements on his own behalf about this, or does he first have to clear everything with experts designated by members of this forum, in order not to be accused of being a shareholder in Bacofoil.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned elsewere this is not a new theory, and at the end of the article he states he's going to share his idea with archaeologist, obviously he hasn't talked with them first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy into it....not so new.

The Egyptians may have used this method in some structures, BUT except for in the obvious places, pyramids are SOLID stone, stacked one on top of the other. Internal ramps may have been used, but then removed and replaced w/ stone blocks as the work progressed upward. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and a pyramid is only as strong as its base.

The possibility of the use of multiple cranes @ the same time should also be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy into it....not so new.

The Egyptians may have used this method in some structures, BUT except for in the obvious places, pyramids are SOLID stone, stacked one on top of the other. Internal ramps may have been used, but then removed and replaced w/ stone blocks as the work progressed upward. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and a pyramid is only as strong as its base.

The possibility of the use of multiple cranes @ the same time should also be considered.

The problem with the crane theory is that the physics don't jive...besides that the pulley was not invented until 1000 years later.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because OUR physics don't jive doesn't mean they couldn't build one.

Pulleys helpful, but not absolutely necessary. (Assuming that they didn't have them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because OUR physics don't jive doesn't mean they couldn't build one.

Pulleys helpful, but not absolutely necessary. (Assuming that they didn't have them.)

There is no our physics or their physics. That works the same for all. It may have different names but not different functions.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of ramps far inside the pyramid as he proposes is improbable. It would require

most of the weight of the structure to be taken up inside and then the only means to fill the

void would be hauling it up the outside and dumping down into the chasm. Perhaps his idea

is more workable idea than what is presented.

I do like this part though;

"He adds that had that happened, there would still be signs that the ramps had been there."

I would love to be at the conference when he mentions that and see the look on his face when they ask him about the remains of the ramps that have been found.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to be at the conference when he mentions that and see the look on his face when they ask him about the remains of the ramps that have been found.

There are no ramp remains on any great pyramid except a couple that point

to the BOTTOM of the pyramid and could have been used to take stone to the

pyramid base. The real question is ho were the stones lifted in order to create

the stack we call a pyramid. His method would account for 80% of the weight

but can't account for the top (the hard part).

There's hearsay that a "ramp" at Meidum points higher up but so far as I know

no scientfic measurements have been done and no such picture can be found

on the net.

I'm sure this guy is probably acquainted with all the basic facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stones were lifted by CRANES. :yes:

Sm stones, balloons and palm tree trunks will not support a 5 MILLION TON structure. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is ignorant?, who does not have a "meanigful knowledgebase of AE society"? and who needs to "share their ignorance"?

For myself, and until anything more compelling appears, I rather like the Houdin theory.

Still seems odd that this guy from Wales is jumped on before he even has a chance to have his say. He is hardly in the fringe league, is he....

If you make even a modest attempt to read many of the threads/posts within this part of UM concerning pyramid constructioin I'm sure that you'll be able to answer that question for yourself, rather quickly.

And if you'd actually noticed I didn't say anything against Houdin's theory.

There are a few things wrong with this guys claim, such as:

1) He's shown no actual evidence of anything that has negated or replaced all other theories of pyramid construction, nor is his theory new, but more like a variation of already extant theories on the subject of pyramid construction.

2) He's published no professional papers nor apparently consulted Egyptologists about his idea. He's also not shown any evidence for, nor understanding of, what technologies are evidenced from the period of pyramid construction.

3) His experience with his company regardless of duration and in and of itself is irrelevant to the construction of any pyramid. Unless you'd like to claim that he's either found blueprints of said pyramids construction or that he's been around for 4000+ years, both of which I doubt you'd claim.

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no ramp remains on any great pyramid except a couple that point

to the BOTTOM of the pyramid and could have been used to take stone to the

pyramid base. The real question is ho were the stones lifted in order to create

the stack we call a pyramid. His method would account for 80% of the weight

but can't account for the top (the hard part).

There's hearsay that a "ramp" at Meidum points higher up but so far as I know

no scientfic measurements have been done and no such picture can be found

on the net.

I'm sure this guy is probably acquainted with all the basic facts.

Interesting, as many of us have been saying the same for years and you've claimed many times that no such ramps exist.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, as many of us have been saying the same for years and you've claimed many times that no such ramps exist.

cormac

Well, either it was a lapsus or to the contrary of our prejudice he is actually capable of learning after all :devil:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you make even a modest attempt to read many of the threads/posts within this part of UM concerning pyramid constructioin I'm sure that you'll be able to answer that question for yourself, rather quickly.

And if you'd actually noticed I didn't say anything against Houdin's theory.

There are a few things wrong with this guys claim, such as:

1) He's shown no actual evidence of anything that has negated or replaced all other theories of pyramid construction, nor is his theory new, but more like a variation of already extant theories on the subject of pyramid construction.

2) He's published no professional papers nor apparently consulted Egyptologists about his idea. He's also not shown any evidence for, nor understanding of, what technologies are evidenced from the period of pyramid construction.

3) His experience with his company regardless of duration and in and of itself is irrelevant to the construction of any pyramid. Unless you'd like to claim that he's either found blueprints of said pyramids construction or that he's been around for 4000+ years, both of which I doubt you'd claim.

cormac

You seem to be putting words in my mouth and assuming that you know what posts in this forum I have read. I have not even defended this guy's theory, or knocked it, as I do not know exactly what material he is to present, and neither do you or anybody else on this forum. I would think it wise to wait and see what he says, before presuming to know what he is to say and knocking him for, what exactly, simply for the sake of it. If he's wrong, then trash him, but doing it before he even presents his case is preposterous.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
1 person likes this

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.