Secret Bottom Part of Great Pyramid

[moonman]

Has any armchair archeaologist ever once discovered something relevant? Seriously, I want to know. Thousands of woo seekers out there with hundreds of crackpot theories, surely one of them figured out something relevant, no? Say it ain't so.

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by moonman

[Essan]

11 hours ago, Bennu said:

the ground level of the sides are the odd number of cubits that they are, 439.8204178980326

 

You sure it's not 439.00000000785 cubits?   Or even 438.99997522285619999653999982 cubits?

Have you trebled checked your measurements?   

And which side are you talking about? 

[Razumov]

It would be normal when building a vast stone pyramid to lay a foundation first.

[kmt_sesh]

15 hours ago, seanjo said:

Nah...the sandstone blocks at the bottom probably couldn't stand the weight, the great pyramid (without your addition) is very likely as big as they could build without the lower blocks fracturing. I wouldn't rule out a chamber under the pyramid though, but find it unlikely.

Sorry, no. Something fantastical you want to be true doesn't make it yrue. Playing around with mathematical concepts that are irrelevant to the pharaonic culture in the first place, puts you on very poor footing. Look at your image: you have far more mass below ground than the pyramid has in its visible layers—and the pyramid already sits on solid bedrock. What you're proposing is spectacularly unrealistic, so no books need be rewritten. With apologies, this is just one more fantasy taking up pixels on the internet.

Quote

No, the bottom part isn't blocks, it's the natural bedrock...

Incorrect again. There is indeed a sizable massif of limestone at the foot of the pyramid, which was an expedience in the early stages of construction. Parts of it are visible behind the outer blocks. Parts of it. But the brunt of the foundation is composed of very large limestone blocks.

Why are people so often trying to re-invent the Great Pyramid when they don't understand the Great Pyramid in the first place?

[kmt_sesh]

4 hours ago, moonman said:

Has any armchair archeaologist ever once discovered something relevant? Seriously, I want to know...

There are amateur archaeologists who contribute a lot to our knowledge, but they start from realistic, reliable research.

But has fringe woo ever once discovered something relevant? No. Absolutely not.

[kmt_sesh]

5 hours ago, Bennu said:

Cool. The Nile must have worn passages into the plateau over centuries.

Not so much the Nile, but the water table. It still fluctuates quite a lot to this day, working away at the weaker members of limestone strata and creating cavities and voids.

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, seanjo said:

Eeeeerm, got your quoting wrong methinks!

Eep! You are right. My apologies. I meant to quote the OP, obviously. But as long as I'm in here, a quick correction: the blocks were not sandstone but limestone. Sandstone was not a common building material in Egypt until the New Kingdom.

[Bennu]

I take it that there are no substantive flaws identifiable in the Double Great Pyramid theory then. Because if there was, somebody like that Creighton guy would have piped up by now. The silence, aside from lame one liners, is deafening.

[Bennu]

58 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Eep! You are right. My apologies. I meant to quote the OP, obviously. But as long as I'm in here, a quick correction: the blocks were not sandstone but limestone. Sandstone was not a common building material in Egypt until the New Kingdom.

Actually, it was recently determined that none of the limestone used in the Giza pyramids came from Giza. It was all imported, even the core stones. I guess someone else probably mentioned that story in this forum somewhere.

[danydandan]

8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

you see what you just done again? changing the topic with the most unfunny of remarks. for an intelligent man, surely you don't crave attention and acceptance from people that are hardwired to not consider new information and friendly debate? 

Yeah that's what I do. I say to myself "how can I get @Harte like my comment". Then I develop a plan and boom I off-topic a thread that has absolutely no relevance to reality what so ever. How many ground penetrating radar tests have been done in and around the area or on the structure itself? Hundreds maybe thousands even? What's the point in just making stuff up, considering the OP is doing it with their attempts to murder mathematics, archeology and history, I assume I can make up jokes about how they lifed stuff back then. No? 

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by danydandan

[kmt_sesh]

17 minutes ago, Bennu said:

Actually, it was recently determined that none of the limestone used in the Giza pyramids came from Giza. It was all imported, even the core stones. I guess someone else probably mentioned that story in this forum somewhere.

So now you're just making stuff up? Or is this from some half-baked woo website? It was not "recently determined" because there is no scant truth to that fiction. It's already been established chemically and geologically that the limesonte used to build the pyramids at Giza came from...Giza. I mean, really, the quarries are still there.

You need to set aside the silly bunkum (whatever your source is) and turn to legitimate, properly researched, peer-reviewed papers and books. The benefit to you would be enormous. And far less embarrassing. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

29 minutes ago, Bennu said:

Actually, it was recently determined that none of the limestone used in the Giza pyramids came from Giza. It was all imported, even the core stones. I guess someone else probably mentioned that story in this forum somewhere.

You got a source for that claim?

[Kenemet]

1 hour ago, Bennu said:

I take it that there are no substantive flaws identifiable in the Double Great Pyramid theory then. Because if there was, somebody like that Creighton guy would have piped up by now. The silence, aside from lame one liners, is deafening.

Well, if they'd constructed it that way, we would have seen the breakup in the paving.  And the landscape.  The rock layers haven't been disturbed.  A passage would have been noted by the muon scans.

[Tatetopa]

You know if I were a king and wanted to build an absolutely splendid, wonder of the world resting place; I probably wouldn't hide 2/3 of it underground. Seems counterproductive to sink that much of your nations income into an invisible basement.

Generally you wouldn't rewrite books until you actually had  clear undeniable evidence rather than a  cool drawing.  When you are snapping lines to a point in CAD drawings, they can connect and deviate  marginally from the actual lines you originally drew.  Did you perhaps equalize the sides and angles when in the actual structure they were unequal  by half a degree or the sides a meter or so off?  Depends a little bit on the integrity of the corners of the stones you measure too right?  Can you model in Solidworks or some other 3D system?  If the downward passage you drew was in fact a little into or out of the flat plane of the page, you would miss the corner entirely.

After seeing Kenemet,s excellent drawing though, I am inclined to wonder if the passage actually comes out in Chichen Itza  or Tiahuanaco.   Ok that was my one liner.

 

[AtlantisRises]

I certainly am not an expert on Egypt or the pyramids but I imagine that the Great Pyramid would be one of the most heavily picked over archaeological sites in the world. I have worked with ground penetrating radar to find pipes and cables over the years. I am sure that with the amount of money that has been thrown at the pyramids that the existence of an underground building would have long ago have been found.

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by AtlantisRises

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

10 hours ago, moonman said:

Has any armchair archeaologist ever once discovered something relevant? Seriously, I want to know. Thousands of woo seekers out there with hundreds of crackpot theories, surely one of them figured out something relevant, no? Say it ain't so.

 

Yes. 

Some kid using IIRC google earth found a Mayan City. The experts poo-pooed him until they checked his data, he was right.

[Harte]

5 hours ago, danydandan said:

Yeah that's what I do. I say to myself "how can I get @Harte like my comment". Then I develop a plan and boom I off-topic a thread that has absolutely no relevance to reality what so ever. How many ground penetrating radar tests have been done in and around the area or on the structure itself? Hundreds maybe thousands even? What's the point in just making stuff up, considering the OP is doing it with their attempts to murder mathematics, archeology and history, I assume I can make up jokes about how they lifed stuff back then. No?

That's way too much effort.

I'm easy.

Just slip in a reference to Vergina.

Harte

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, Harte said:

That's way too much effort.

I'm easy.

Just slip in a reference to Vergina.

Harte

A like and a response.

Job done! 

[Harte]

3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Yes. 

Some kid using IIRC google earth found a Mayan City. The experts poo-pooed him until they checked his data, he was right.

Turned out he wasn't.

Quote

Coincidentally, an archaeological team from the University of California San Diego had been working in the area. When they saw the images, they were immediately able to identify the disruptions as a dried-up lagoon and several fields (which may be used to grow marijuana).

Link

Harte

[Bennu]

Here's something related to G2, the "13 pyramid". I made a rectangle with the short side the size of G2 sides and the long sides 1300 cubits. I discussed the mathematics of this earlier. It seems to correlate to the Sphinx complex. Actually it's just the lower triangle that seems to be involved. Maybe something is at the point position.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Bennu

[M. Williams]

10 hours ago, Bennu said:

Actually, it was recently determined that none of the limestone used in the Giza pyramids came from Giza. It was all imported, even the core stones. I guess someone else probably mentioned that story in this forum somewhere.

I don't recall that at all. Got a source ?

[Hanslune]

https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/5a3c5c46482c9.pdf

The link you guys were looking for - an interesting read - I wonder if these outer layers were brought in from an outside source just for this specific part of construction or whether all the stones were brought in and the Giza quarries were used for mortuary temples etc., only.

 

[Bennu]

Look what happened when I tried putting a triangle on G1 like G2, using sq rt 2 x side length as the long side of the triangle, 622 cubits. As you can see, the tips are lined up surprisingly well. Could be coincidence, but seems like a good possibility it's intentional. I wonder if G3 has a triangle too. Probably, I'll take a look.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Bennu

[cormac mac airt]

15 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/5a3c5c46482c9.pdf

The link you guys were looking for - an interesting read - I wonder if these outer layers were brought in from an outside source just for this specific part of construction or whether all the stones were brought in and the Giza quarries were used for mortuary temples etc., only.

 

As the introduction says, in part: 

Quote

The limestone quarries were opened in each building site or in its immediate neighbourhood. Most of the material that was used to build the pyramids at Giza was extracted in the plateau.

I'm not seeing any evidence in the above paper that ALL material was sourced from outside the plateau as Bennu claimed in Post #36. So while interesting the paper hasn't significantly changed what we already knew IMO. 

cormac

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

@Bennu   Interesting math. But "proof"...?  nope.