Khufu Cartouche in GP 20,000 Years Old?

[zoser]

LOL! That is a real gut buster post!!!

"Take the GP which is the worlds most impressive and complex structure."

I've seen very many impressive structures. And almost all structures, even a mud hut, can be more complex. An Egyptian pyramid is little more then piled rocks. Sure it is huge, but the construction method is basic stone age.

Precisely why I don't take people seriously on this particular forum.

The Great Pyramid consists of two million limestone blocks, has the height of a forty-story building and the width of two and a half football fields. The foundation of the pyramid is bedrock chiselled with a precision of only 2 centimetres off perfect level. Even today with all our technical know-how and laser precision craftsmanship according to specialists we are not able to build a structure like the Great Pyramid which such precision! We simply do not have the mechanical technology available to carve the stones that construct the pyramid with the precision that has been used!

In fact attempts have been made to prove that the pyramid could be constructed using the known ancient Egyptian tools and methods. Egyptologist Mark Lehner has made an attempt with a large group of people but failed to even create a 6 m scale model of the pyramid. He had to call in the help of a truck with a winch to get the blocks out of the quarry. In the late seventies a Japanese team funded by Nissan made another attempt to create an 18 m high scale model using the same primitive ancient Egyptian tools such as chisels and hammers.

The once so proud Japanese team returned home disillusioned and embarrassed, since they had to use jackhammers to cut the hard stone, were unable to get the stones across the Nile and eventually had to use bulldozers, a truck and even a helicopter to get the blocks stacked to a pile that remotely resembled a pyramid. In both attempts made to reconstruct the pyramid, only small blocks were carved from the quarry but remember that the real pyramid contains blocks with the weight of a steam engine locomotive!

Also consider that these stones are so perfectly carved and the mortar joints are so terribly thin that you can’t even get a sheet of paper in between them! The mortar joints are terribly strong, far stronger that the mortar that we use nowadays. The stones seem more or less glued or fused together. The smallest blocks weigh a ton. The average block however weighs 2,5 tons up to even 70 tons. How could the Egyptians lift these very heavy blocks with such precision to the height of a forty-story building? Although there are some theories, we simply don’t know for sure. The massive construction of the pyramid is aligned with a precision of only 3 minutes and 6 seconds off perfect alignment to the 4 cardinal points.

http://www.soulsofdi...A_chapter8.html

If you can't explain it; downplay it.

Edited December 4, 2013 by zoser

[cormac mac airt]

Precisely why I don't take people seriously on this particular forum.

The Great Pyramid consists of two million limestone blocks, has the height of a forty-story building and the width of two and a half football fields. The foundation of the pyramid is bedrock chiselled with a precision of only 2 centimetres off perfect level. Even today with all our technical know-how and laser precision craftsmanship according to specialists we are not able to build a structure like the Great Pyramid which such precision! We simply do not have the mechanical technology available to carve the stones that construct the pyramid with the precision that has been used!

In fact attempts have been made to prove that the pyramid could be constructed using the known ancient Egyptian tools and methods. Egyptologist Mark Lehner has made an attempt with a large group of people but failed to even create a 6 m scale model of the pyramid. He had to call in the help of a truck with a winch to get the blocks out of the quarry. In the late seventies a Japanese team funded by Nissan made another attempt to create an 18 m high scale model using the same primitive ancient Egyptian tools such as chisels and hammers.

The once so proud Japanese team returned home disillusioned and embarrassed, since they had to use jackhammers to cut the hard stone, were unable to get the stones across the Nile and eventually had to use bulldozers, a truck and even a helicopter to get the blocks stacked to a pile that remotely resembled a pyramid. In both attempts made to reconstruct the pyramid, only small blocks were carved from the quarry but remember that the real pyramid contains blocks with the weight of a steam engine locomotive!

Also consider that these stones are so perfectly carved and the mortar joints are so terribly thin that you can’t even get a sheet of paper in between them! The mortar joints are terribly strong, far stronger that the mortar that we use nowadays. The stones seem more or less glued or fused together. The smallest blocks weigh a ton. The average block however weighs 2,5 tons up to even 70 tons. How could the Egyptians lift these very heavy blocks with such precision to the height of a forty-story building? Although there are some theories, we simply don’t know for sure. The massive construction of the pyramid is aligned with a precision of only 3 minutes and 6 seconds off perfect alignment to the 4 cardinal points.

http://www.soulsofdi...A_chapter8.html

If you can't explain it; downplay it.

As an rough estimate 2 million blocks is fine. But presenting it as fact, not so much. Particularly since there is a known massif/hillock over which the blocks are placed. I even created a thread about the quantity of blocks nearly 3 years ago:

http://www.unexplain...0

Your "bedrock" is limestone with a massif/hillock on it which only means that the areas that could be measured around said feature are level to within the claimed "2 centimeters off true level". This says absolutely nothing about the quality of levelness of the massif/hillock within. All of which means that the base of the pyramid, in its totality, is not evidenced as being within 2 centimeters of true level.

This is precisely why I don't take people seriously here, who don't know the difference between an estimate and what that estimate encompasses, since (per Petrie) it always included the massif/hillock from the start.

cormac

Edited December 4, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[+DieChecker]

Precisely why I don't take people seriously on this particular forum.

What forums do you take seriously?

The Great Pyramid consists of two million limestone blocks, has the height of a forty-story building and the width of two and a half football fields.

Large does not equal complex. Large numbers does not equal complex.

The foundation of the pyramid is bedrock chiselled with a precision of only 2 centimetres off perfect level.

So? This can be done with an inch deep pool of water and a chisel. Or, rather, a Lot of chisels.

Even today with all our technical know-how and laser precision craftsmanship according to specialists we are not able to build a structure like the Great Pyramid which such precision! We simply do not have the mechanical technology available to carve the stones that construct the pyramid with the precision that has been used!

This is a complete falsehood. It is easily reproducable. Just monumentally (pun intended) expensive.

Do you imagine that these pyramid stones are more precisely cut then we can do industrially with power tools and motorized equipment?

In fact attempts have been made to prove that the pyramid could be constructed using the known ancient Egyptian tools and methods. Egyptologist Mark Lehner has made an attempt with a large group of people but failed to even create a 6 m scale model of the pyramid. He had to call in the help of a truck with a winch to get the blocks out of the quarry. In the late seventies a Japanese team funded by Nissan made another attempt to create an 18 m high scale model using the same primitive ancient Egyptian tools such as chisels and hammers.

The once so proud Japanese team returned home disillusioned and embarrassed, since they had to use jackhammers to cut the hard stone, were unable to get the stones across the Nile and eventually had to use bulldozers, a truck and even a helicopter to get the blocks stacked to a pile that remotely resembled a pyramid. In both attempts made to reconstruct the pyramid, only small blocks were carved from the quarry but remember that the real pyramid contains blocks with the weight of a steam engine locomotive!

The historical record shows that such stones are easily moveable by determined people. The tens of thousands of sites worldwide attest to the ability to do so. Stacking the stones is harder, but has been demonstrated dozens of times to the satisfaction of most of the scientific community. The article specifically picks the two worst examples of attempts at pyramid building.

Again few have done so.... because it is very expensive.

Also consider that these stones are so perfectly carved and the mortar joints are so terribly thin that you can’t even get a sheet of paper in between them!

This is an old one. Where exactly are these joints? Only on the corridors right? Not in the other 99% of the blocks?

The mortar joints are terribly strong, far stronger that the mortar that we use nowadays. The stones seem more or less glued or fused together.

Another falsehood. Where is this documented scientifically. This is merely someone's uneducated opinion from 40 years ago that has made the rounds so many times that to some it is a fact.

The smallest blocks weigh a ton. The average block however weighs 2,5 tons up to even 70 tons. How could the Egyptians lift these very heavy blocks with such precision to the height of a forty-story building? Although there are some theories, we simply don’t know for sure.

A ton? WOW! That is like the weight of a cow and moving a cow is IMPOSSIBLE!! Everyone knows that.

Truely some of the blocks are very heavy, but all that required was more rope, more people and more time.

The massive construction of the pyramid is aligned with a precision of only 3 minutes and 6 seconds off perfect alignment to the 4 cardinal points.

A boy scout can find perfectly due North with a stick to cast a shadow. It is not rocket science.

http://www.soulsofdi...A_chapter8.html

If you can't explain it; downplay it.

There...... Explained.

[Yamato]

Not sure how carbon dating rocks determines the age of the pyramids. That just doesn't follow.

[cormac mac airt]

Not sure how carbon dating rocks determines the age of the pyramids. That just doesn't follow.

Rocks aren't carbon dated. Organic material within the mortar (which contains carbon in the way of ash) used between the blocks was.

cormac

[toast]

no post

Edited December 4, 2013 by toast

[questionmark]

Not sure how carbon dating rocks determines the age of the pyramids. That just doesn't follow.

put like that it does not. In this particular case we are talking about a mineral pigment with an organic binder. It was pretty much common usage to mix certain pigments with honey (between 8-15% if my memory does not fail me)in ancient Egypt (in fact, till the invention of oil paints). While it is true that we cannot carbon date a mineral, we certainly can carbon date honey... if we have enough of it.

And here comes the part these vandals never get: you need a minimum of operational knowledge to take samples. You don't arm yourself with a pen knife and an envelope and start scraping off something. In this case it looks like they came back with a sample of 1/5 they would have needed to get an accurate reading... besides the fact that they stole the sample causing unnecessary damage to a world heritage object.

Edited December 4, 2013 by questionmark

[Quaentum]

Precisely why I don't take people seriously on this particular forum.

The Great Pyramid consists of two million limestone blocks, has the height of a forty-story building and the width of two and a half football fields. The foundation of the pyramid is bedrock chiselled with a precision of only 2 centimetres off perfect level. Even today with all our technical know-how and laser precision craftsmanship according to specialists we are not able to build a structure like the Great Pyramid which such precision! We simply do not have the mechanical technology available to carve the stones that construct the pyramid with the precision that has been used!

In fact attempts have been made to prove that the pyramid could be constructed using the known ancient Egyptian tools and methods. Egyptologist Mark Lehner has made an attempt with a large group of people but failed to even create a 6 m scale model of the pyramid. He had to call in the help of a truck with a winch to get the blocks out of the quarry. In the late seventies a Japanese team funded by Nissan made another attempt to create an 18 m high scale model using the same primitive ancient Egyptian tools such as chisels and hammers.

The once so proud Japanese team returned home disillusioned and embarrassed, since they had to use jackhammers to cut the hard stone, were unable to get the stones across the Nile and eventually had to use bulldozers, a truck and even a helicopter to get the blocks stacked to a pile that remotely resembled a pyramid. In both attempts made to reconstruct the pyramid, only small blocks were carved from the quarry but remember that the real pyramid contains blocks with the weight of a steam engine locomotive!

Also consider that these stones are so perfectly carved and the mortar joints are so terribly thin that you can’t even get a sheet of paper in between them! The mortar joints are terribly strong, far stronger that the mortar that we use nowadays. The stones seem more or less glued or fused together. The smallest blocks weigh a ton. The average block however weighs 2,5 tons up to even 70 tons. How could the Egyptians lift these very heavy blocks with such precision to the height of a forty-story building? Although there are some theories, we simply don’t know for sure. The massive construction of the pyramid is aligned with a precision of only 3 minutes and 6 seconds off perfect alignment to the 4 cardinal points.

http://www.soulsofdi...A_chapter8.html

If you can't explain it; downplay it.

and yet we find chisel marks on the stones.

[zoser]

no post

No toast?

[zoser]

and yet we find chisel marks on the stones.

On the Kings Chamber granite? Really? How do copper chisels cope with red granite do you think? On that scale? How much copper would be required? Show me some estimates please.

Look at the precision of the remaining limestone casing blocks at the bottom? Chiselled you say? Utterly impossible.

I challenge you to provide evidence of such a nonsensical theory.

Edited December 5, 2013 by zoser

[questionmark]

On the Kings Chamber granite? Really? How do copper chisels cope with red granite do you think? On that scale? How much copper would be required? Show me some estimates please.

Look at the precision of the remaining limestone casing blocks at the bottom? Chiselled you say? Utterly impossible.

I challenge you to provide evidence of such a nonsensical theory.

so, polishing the equivalent of an average living room's wall space (~ 182 m2) is something not achievable by humans and sand?

And the casing blocks are a very bad example, first they were limestone, which has been successfully formed by grinding since the middle stone age and second, on looking behind them you see exactly what is meant by sub-par construction: lots of gaps filled by mortar.

The only nonsense here comes from those who have never spend more than an hour actually looking at the GP or from those who had on the wrong glasses when they did.

[+DieChecker]

Look at the precision of the remaining limestone casing blocks at the bottom? Chiselled you say? Utterly impossible.

Are you saying that chiseling limestone is impossible? That is ridiculous.

[Quaentum]

On the Kings Chamber granite? Really? How do copper chisels cope with red granite do you think? On that scale? How much copper would be required? Show me some estimates please.

Look at the precision of the remaining limestone casing blocks at the bottom? Chiselled you say? Utterly impossible.

I challenge you to provide evidence of such a nonsensical theory.

Utterly Impossible?

"The Great Pyramid: Ancient Egypt revisited" by John Romer

It can be found on Google Books at this link. http://books.google.com/books?id=ag_blaOMgDUC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=great+pyramid+stones+show+chisel+marks&source=bl&ots=nxVzc3-drZ&sig=gtJH8ePdV720f2pLZCMfak-UCAo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rTeiUpStLcjmsATn9oGoDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=great%20pyramid%20stones%20show%20chisel%20marks&f=false

You will find yourself on page 108. Scroll down to page 109 and you will see an image of the blocks of the Great Pyramid clearly showing chisel marks. Thus has the utterly impossible become reality.

Now how about you show any evidence that the pyramid was built with advanced technology. Not belief in advanced technology fueled by disbelief that the AE's could have built it with the technology they had but real evidence of advanced technology.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

DON'T DO IT!

Zoser's on his favourite topic and he will not engage in debate on it, just say "here, disprove this then" and offer "aliens someone with a laser did it" as his position and not budge.

On days like this, you feel sorry for that bridge out there that's lonely and being trod on by goats without it's defender.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Further on the vandals. Two articles from the "Egypt Independant" and in English. Seems these clowns have been "playing" at Giza for seven years before this came to light, on their own admission. Interesting that in the particular case in question from last April, they took "samples" from other locations within the GP and other places around Giza.

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/six-officials-punished-theft-archaeological-site

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/german-archaeologists-will-not-be-penalized-stealing-king-cheops-artifacts-source

[questionmark]

DON'T DO IT!

Zoser's on his favourite topic and he will not engage in debate on it, just say "here, disprove this then" and offer "aliens someone with a laser did it" as his position and not budge.

On days like this, you feel sorry for that bridge out there that's lonely and being trod on by goats without it's defender.

Oh we know,and at the end we will have to conclude again that the Nibblers forgot their ACME Builditall MK IV on Niburu and had to panhandle to the local chieftains for a few thousand worker with wood mallets and bronze chisels to built something that otherwise the locals could not have build themselves....

[Harte]

DON'T DO IT!

Zoser's on his favourite topic and he will not engage in debate on it, just say "here, disprove this then" and offer "aliens someone with a laser did it" as his position and not budge.

I would agree with you Sir Knight.

Zoser's position on this is pretty much vitrified, wouldn't you say?

Harte

[Windowpane]

Irna, on 01 December 2013 - 02:57 AM, said:

Oh, so Howard-Vyse was not a fraud after all?

[scott Creighton]

You should realise that my position with regards to the activities of Howard-Vyse has always been that, given his past record of fraud and criminal behaviour, he is an unreliable witness. I have always argued that the only way to vindicate Howard-Vyse (or otherwise) is to scientifically analyse these markings in order to determine their authenticity (or otherwise). What I found remarkable is that Egypt-apologists here (and elsewhere) were more concerned with trying to prove Howard-Vyse was actually a saint and that his testimony should stand rather than do any real science on the available evidence. I take it that you are happy then that real science should be used to decide this issue and that it should not be settled on the mere word of Howard-Vyse?

http://www.grahamhan...329195&t=329195

There seem to be quite a few threads on GHMB concerned with Howard Vyse. Several people say there is nothing stylistically wrong with the cartouche found in the relieving chambers, and therefore no point in trying to date the paint.

There's also an article by Irna about Howard Vyse and the quarry marks on her site.

Windowpane

[mstower]

I see that Creighton has brought his nonsense here again.

Posts on this topic from 7 October on:

http://www.hallofmaa...ad.php?6,580469

Having followed developments since then, you may be sure that I’ve been on the lookout for any substantial release of information. I also have all of the video clips referenced (including the ones since made private).

The nearest there’s been to an official statement of results has been the claim of Dominique Görlitz (reported here) to this effect:

„Erste Untersuchungen der gewonnenen Farbpartikel zeigen, dass diese nicht den allgemein bekannten, eisenoxidhaltigen Farben der Ägypter entsprechen.“

I leave it as is, as I’m not sure that there’s not a nuance in the German which escapes me. It seems to me that the statement is ambiguous, but I can not be sure of this.

Beyond that, everyone’s clammed up. The SGS Institut Fresenius, a respectable institution mindful of its respectability and embarrassed by the whole episode, has done its best to deny all knowledge. It seems to be Fresenius (presumably through spokesman Torsten Laub) stating that the sample is too small for radiocarbon dating:

http://www.ingenieur...Cheops-Pyramide

There’s no official report of results and as things are there’s unlikely ever to be one.

We may note in passing Creighton’s characteristic attempt to conjure an ersatz for same from the dark sayings of an Egyptian academic, fed through Google Translate. One small problem (among many): the passage he quotes is not from Ahmed Saied, but from this report, which seems to be by one Dina Abdel-Alim:

http://www.youm7.com...23#.Uo5Qd9JHKSo

Saied merely links to it from his Facebook page.

Faculty Web page of Ahmed Saied:

http://fa-arch.cu.ed...egp/DrAhmed.htm

His Facebook page:

https://www.facebook...hp?id=729217333

M.

Edited December 8, 2013 by mstower

[toast]

„Erste Untersuchungen der gewonnenen Farbpartikel zeigen, dass diese nicht den allgemein bekannten, eisenoxidhaltigen Farben der Ägypter entsprechen.“

Means :

"First analysis trial of the painting samples resulted, that the chemical matrix of the analyzed samples do not match the chemical

matrix of the ferric oxide containing paints, that were usually used by the ancient Egyptians."

Edited December 8, 2013 by toast

[mstower]

SC: Hmm... the plot thickens. It now seems that paint WAS taken from the cartouche of Khufu and that it HAS been C14 dated. The result... sit down folks... the result of the C14 dating apparently dates the pigment from the Khufu cartouche to "centuries". Not millennia as you might expect but "centuries". Here is the Google translation from the Arabic of Professor Ahmed Saied (apparently of Cairo University) who has been following and commenting on this story:

Saied: "...they have analyzed samples of the cartouche of Khufu and reached the result, which is that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid and that the ink used in the cartridges [cartouche] to jot down details constructed the pyramid is not old, but the age of the pyramid itself is larger than life, cartouche centuries, which confirms that the pyramid is not due to Khufu ..." - Source (4th paragraph).

It seems then that Professor Saied is saying that:

a) The paint samples were taken from the Khufu Cartouche (and it seems many years ago).

b.) The samples HAVE been analysed (in Germany).

c) Results of the tests HAVE been returned.

d) The paint "is not old" but "centuries".

I think merry hell is about to break loose now. Just remember folks - not to shoot the messenger.

Regards,

SC

It beggars belief. Creighton even links to the piece—and still he can’t see that it’s a news report, by one Dina Abdel-Alim and not by Professor Ahmed Saied.

Try Google Translate on the whole page:

http://translate.goo...1356323&act=url

The only connection Saied has with this report is linking to it from his Facebook page:

https://www.facebook...hp?id=729217333

He’s not even quoted in it.

M.

Edited December 9, 2013 by mstower

[mstower]

SC: Perhaps it might be better for you to hold off making such assertions until the lab report is made public. That would seem to be the sensible thing to do.

You first, Creighton. Show us how it’s done.

M.

[+DieChecker]

We may note in passing Creighton’s characteristic attempt to conjure an ersatz for same from the dark sayings of an Egyptian academic, fed through Google Translate. One small problem (among many): the passage he quotes is not from Ahmed Saied, but from this report, which seems to be by one Dina Abdel-Alim:

http://www.youm7.com...23#.Uo5Qd9JHKSo

So this is all about proving that the Jews built the Pyramids at Giza? And that the Jews used the pyramids as water pump devices?

I agree with the Egyptians, these guys need to spend some time in Prison for being criminally (pun intended) stupid.

[Windowpane]

Perhaps it might be better for you to hold off making such assertions until the lab report is made public.

This Italian site, dated 2 December, reports Bernd Mehkich (Mehlich) of the Fresenius Institut as saying:

i frammenti sono così piccoli che non sarebbe neppure possibile sottoporli all’esame del radio carbonio.

[the fragments are so small that it would not even be possible to submit them to radio carbon tests].

Edited December 9, 2013 by Windowpane

[questionmark]

This Italian site, dated 2 December, reports Bernd Mehkich (Mehlich) of the Fresenius Institut as saying:

Not surprising, they are,as I pointed out before,only 20% of the required quantity of 500 mg.