a hint at the pyramids: building

[Abramelin]

Thanks Cladking and Kmt_sesh, but no, the guy in the documentary is not Michel Barsoum, nor Mark Lehner, nor Indiana Jones (too hairy, lol)

But I found something that will add extra info to the OP:

New Pyramid Theory: Khufu's Great Pyramid, its Building Grid, the Number 7 and the 'Diamond Matrix'

[The Cosmic Fluke]

too bad we can't ask Ed Leedskalnin, as he definitely knew how it was done.

[ShadowSot]

too bad we can't ask Ed Leedskalnin, as he definitely knew how it was done.

He left enough chains, tri-pods, motors, and block and tackle for us to figure it out.

[questionmark]

He left enough chains, tri-pods, motors, and block and tackle for us to figure it out.

Don't tell me that there are claims he had the aid of the Nibblers too.

[ShadowSot]

Don't tell me that there are claims he had the aid of the Nibblers too.

Nope, he had magic levitating stones and anti-gravity.

[questionmark]

Nope, he had magic levitating stones and anti-gravity.

I see....

and the winches he used to pull his breakfast tea up the tower... makes sense.

[ShadowSot]

I see....

and the winches he used to pull his breakfast tea up the tower... makes sense.

No no, see, the wenches and such were placed there to fool us.

And wenches are very distracting...

(Edited to fix typo, but left it alone.)

Edited September 29, 2010 by ShadowSot

[questionmark]

No no, see, the wenches and such were placed there to fool us.

well, a wench there could fool me...

[ShadowSot]

well, a wench there could fool me...

Yes, as well as winches and wrenches and benches.

(I'm sure there's at least one or two wenches there, it's a tourist trap now.)

[Harte]

Bless your profs.

It wasn't aliens. Who in their right mind would even entertain such a notion? Everyone with at least one functioning brain cell knows it was...the Atlanteans.

Oh, please!

The Atlanteans had no time for such foolishness as stacking rectangular blocks.

They were too busy developing crystal technologies and mercury-vortex vimana engines.

Obviously it was the Lemurians, with their humongous slave-army of giant lemurs (and lemur wenches for after work every day.)

Led by our ever-present Basset-master overlords.

Harte

Edited September 29, 2010 by Harte

[kmt_sesh]

Nope, he had magic levitating stones and anti-gravity.

Not to mention the ever-so-convenient chains, tri-pods, motors, and block and tackle you previously mentioned. "Don't look at the machinery! I did all of this with the power of my mind so I could awe and impress all of you gullible sheep good folks."

[ShadowSot]

Not to mention the ever-so-convenient chains, tri-pods, motors, and block and tackle you previously mentioned. "Don't look at the machinery! I did all of this with the power of my mind so I could awe and impress all of you gullible sheep good folks."

To be fair, I don't think he ever really set out to pull the wool over people's eyes. It seems more people are unwilling to ascribe to him his accomplishment without some incredible abilities.

Yes, he did claim that he had discovered the secret of the Egyptians, so maybe I'm just being generous.

[psyche101]

Thanks Cladking and Kmt_sesh, but no, the guy in the documentary is not Michel Barsoum, nor Mark Lehner, nor Indiana Jones (too hairy, lol)

But I found something that will add extra info to the OP:

New Pyramid Theory: Khufu's Great Pyramid, its Building Grid, the Number 7 and the 'Diamond Matrix'

I am sure I know the one you mean, I am sure I saw it on the ABC, I thought it was one of the bigger mobs - Nat Geo or similar. Been a while, I am sure it was over a year ago that I saw it.

Edited September 30, 2010 by psyche101

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

What's everyone's take on this comment. Ill post it in full for review.

In fact Flinders Petrie already noted the modulus of 7 in the Great Pyramid in 1925, in his Nature journal article, and related it to the circular proportions of the architecture:

“The bases of some of the other pyramids are also known from my surveys. That of king Snefru and Meydum immediately... preceded the Great Pyramid, and was planned on a similar system of measures. Both have the proportions resulting from the height being the radius of a circle equal to the circuit of the base, the angles found being:

By Pi theory: 51*51’14”.3

Khufu’s pyramid 51* 50’ 40” +/- 1’5”

Sneferu’s pyramid 51* 52’ +/-2” ?

The dimensions found are:

Khufu’s, height 7, circuit 44, x 40 cubits.

Sneferu’s, height 7, circuit 44, x 25 cubits.

The modulus of design, being thus 40 or 25 cubits shows the deliberate intention to embody the proportions of 7 : 22.”

This new Norwegian article has possibly identified this modulus through other means, but his conclusion that circular proportions were not intentional but a by-product is not correct. The modulus 7 is identifiably there precisely because of the circular proportions.

Thats my take on this, as it was the take of I.E.S Edwards and Miroslav Verner and other top Egyptologists who also agreed that the circular proportions were the definining factor. My own 2008 work additionally suggests this was related to the architectural symbolic protection of Horus-Shenu - Horus-with-the shen, indicating "eternal royal encircling protection."

Best,

David Ian Lightbody

Archaeologist

And what's the consensus of the diamond verses circular. If I understood the post right.

Thank you

[mitchall]

I always call scientists "GUESS"timaters

[questionmark]

What's everyone's take on this comment. Ill post it in full for review.

In fact Flinders Petrie already noted the modulus of 7 in the Great Pyramid in 1925, in his Nature journal article, and related it to the circular proportions of the architecture:

"The bases of some of the other pyramids are also known from my surveys. That of king Snefru and Meydum immediately... preceded the Great Pyramid, and was planned on a similar system of measures. Both have the proportions resulting from the height being the radius of a circle equal to the circuit of the base, the angles found being:

By Pi theory: 51*51'14".3

Khufu's pyramid 51* 50' 40" +/- 1'5"

Sneferu's pyramid 51* 52' +/-2" ?

The dimensions found are:

Khufu's, height 7, circuit 44, x 40 cubits.

Sneferu's, height 7, circuit 44, x 25 cubits.

The modulus of design, being thus 40 or 25 cubits shows the deliberate intention to embody the proportions of 7 : 22."

This new Norwegian article has possibly identified this modulus through other means, but his conclusion that circular proportions were not intentional but a by-product is not correct. The modulus 7 is identifiably there precisely because of the circular proportions.

Thats my take on this, as it was the take of I.E.S Edwards and Miroslav Verner and other top Egyptologists who also agreed that the circular proportions were the definining factor. My own 2008 work additionally suggests this was related to the architectural symbolic protection of Horus-Shenu - Horus-with-the shen, indicating "eternal royal encircling protection."

Best,

David Ian Lightbody

Archaeologist

And what's the consensus of the diamond verses circular. If I understood the post right.

Thank you

There are many ways to Rome and unless we find that the Egyptians at the time actually knew PI (very doubtful) and geometric functions beyond the calculation of the area of a triangle (highly doubtful) we must conclude that, while they are universally applicable, they were not applied to build the pyramids.

[Harte]

What's everyone's take on this comment. Ill post it in full for review.

This new Norwegian article has possibly identified this modulus through other means, but his conclusion that circular proportions were not intentional but a by-product is not correct. The modulus 7 is identifiably there precisely because of the circular proportions.

I disagree entirely.

I say there are no circular proportions.

The ratio 7:22 is there though.

It derives from the way the Egyptians measured angles, or slopes.

We use the "rise over the run," if you recall.

The Egyptians used the run over the rise, figuratively.

So many cubits "in" per so many cubits up.

The GP and several other pyramids were constructed at slopes that, when properly fringified, come out to 22/7, or remarkably close to pi.

However, Khephren's pyramid, built the same way but at a different slope, comes (when massaged using the same fringy methods) to almost exactly 3 (21/7)

In fact, Khefren's pyramid comes much closer to 3 than Khafre's does to pi.

I've laid this out here (IIRC) at least once. When I have more time, I'll search it up for you (or you can.)

Harte

[DigitalSentinal]

Anyone mind informing us Offworlders suscribers exactly why there are no paintings or sculptures anywhere in Egypt showing the Egyptians actually building pyramids?

Like...at all?

Just show us one traditional image that shows the Egyptians actually building a pyramid - of any kind. Not a mastaba or anything like that - a pyramid.

In other words, on this sculpture or drawing, I want to see a pyramid. An undeniable shape resembling a pyramid.

There are over 118 pyramids in Egypt, so...if building the structure was as mundane and non magical as you people seem to suggest, please provide me with the aforementioned proof.

[kmt_sesh]

Anyone mind informing us Offworlders suscribers exactly why there are no paintings or sculptures anywhere in Egypt showing the Egyptians actually building pyramids?

Like...at all?

Just show us one traditional image that shows the Egyptians actually building a pyramid - of any kind. Not a mastaba or anything like that - a pyramid.

In other words, on this sculpture or drawing, I want to see a pyramid. An undeniable shape resembling a pyramid.

There are over 118 pyramids in Egypt, so...if building the structure was as mundane and non magical as you people seem to suggest, please provide me with the aforementioned proof.

Asked and answered many, many, many, many times at UM, and in many, many, many, many different topics and discussions. No mystery. Not relevant, but you can find the answer easily enough by applying appropriate research and study to pharaonic Egypt.

Let's move on.

[DigitalSentinal]

Asked and answered many, many, many, many times at UM, and in many, many, many, many different topics and discussions. No mystery. Not relevant, but you can find the answer easily enough by applying appropriate research and study to pharaonic Egypt.

Let's move on.

Funny how the answer slipped my attention then, since I've asked the question at least three times in here and always received a similar lackluster retort. I HAVE looked for such an image or sculpture or drawing, and I've found not one single image. None. I'll bet you haven't either.

[cladking]

Funny how the answer slipped my attention then, since I've asked the question at least three times in here and always received a similar lackluster retort. I HAVE looked for such an image or sculpture or drawing, and I've found not one single image. None. I'll bet you haven't either.

I can't recall a satisfactory answer to this question either.

Apparently the orthodox view is that the Egyptians just didn't

leave any pictures of ramps or kings being buried in pyramids.

They left everything else but forgot these. As they were for-

getting these they also neglected to leave any evidence for it

or even to so much as bury a ramp builder anywhere.

Maybe it's not kings that live eternally but ramp builders, us-

ers, designers, and dismantlers.

[kmt_sesh]

Funny how the answer slipped my attention then, since I've asked the question at least three times in here and always received a similar lackluster retort. I HAVE looked for such an image or sculpture or drawing, and I've found not one single image. None. I'll bet you haven't either.

No, one hasn't been found, and there's a reason for it. I've discussed the reason at length myself in many different UM topics, one or more of which I'm sure you yourself were in, DigitalSentinal. The fact that it's not in this particular thread doesn't matter because the issue is not pertinent to this particular thread.

Moreover, I have no desire at the moment to rehash the explanation, which is why I encouraged you to search it out yourself.

There is no mystery, at least to the degree you infer. The Great Pyramid was built by Egyptians, against which no argument can be made. The Great Pyramid was built in Dynasty 4, sometime between 2500 and 2700 BCE, a scientifically established fact that itself cannot be dismissed.

Now, Aus has been kind enough to initiate a discussion based on real-world research, so out of respect to him we ought not to veer off into fantasy worlds. If you're interested in discussing fringe views about the Great Pyramid, you really ought to launch a new thread yourself.

Bottom line, the answers are out there in the literature, which includes mountains of solid and professional research. An unfamiliarity with the research does not give one license to dismiss it. Rather, it obligates one to study it.

[DigitalSentinal]

In that case I'm outright calling you on your so called expertise. If you saying that it is no mystery that no written or sculpted or painted image depicts the Egyptian building A pyramid - when the people evidently banded together to create over 118 of them, then I would say that you are the mystery. Hell - perhaps you're even immune to reason.

I'll stand by my case with continued solid footing.

[kmt_sesh]

In that case I'm outright calling you on your so called expertise. If you saying that it is no mystery that no written or sculpted or painted image depicts the Egyptian building A pyramid - when the people evidently banded together to create over 118 of them, then I would say that you are the mystery. Hell - perhaps you're even immune to reason.

I'll stand by my case with continued solid footing.

You do that. Meanwhile, I think you're familiar with me. I've written extensively on the Great Pyramid at UM, supporting the orthodox view and citing the evidence that substantiates the orthodox view. I'm not interested in repeating myself again. Search out some of my old posts, if you wish. However, much better than that, stop sidestepping the issue and rise to my own challenge: delve into the professional research and find the answers for yourself.

As of now, though, I'm not interested in being a party to yet another thread degenerating into speculative and unscientific falderal. You have at it.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Digi have you met sesh before? Lol

To call him out is absolutely ridiculous!

He is the first to say I don't know when he doesn't. Believe me his name means more to him than you think, so he would not dismiss you for no reason.

His reason right now is that we are not describing conspiracy theory. The post is not about who built them, or how they moved the stones. It's more basic than that. You have to learn to walk before you learn to run. And if you hit the floor running believe me you'll fall flat on your face. So with that in mind, let's discuss the topic.

Please start a new thread with your concerns and I will gladly take part. Sesh I'm sure would oblige also. I have tried to present differing views on this subject and I will do the same for you I promise. Just in a different topic. K'

Thank you.

One more question digi does the original post seem like a good start for the way they were built? Do you see anything that needs further study? Ok that was two.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch