Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Satellite Pyramid of Dahshur


Thanos5150

Recommended Posts

Satellite Pyramid of Dahshur-Proof the Great Pyramids Were Built in the Dynastic Period?

While the Grand Gallery of the Great Pyramid is one of its most impressive features, it is not unique to G1 and is a feature found in all of the pyramids attributed to the 4th Dynasty prior, though curiously absent in all that followed. 

Meidum:
b39bee8ca0b9.jpg
Large Photo

Bent:
bentchamb4.jpg

Red:
f3b49b2fa68f26eee1cc10c5658354f8.jpg

G1:
GG1.jpg

Bent pyramid with its satelite pyramid and remnants of enclosure wall:
bent-pyramid1_FGRADgimp.jpg?height=306&w

At first glance, the satellite pyramid would certainly appear be yet another one of those inferior "rubble pyramids" which some claim is the hallmark of demarcation between what was supposedly built by a "lost civilization" and what was built by the AE:
640px-Satellite_pyramid_of_the_Bent_Pyra

Discussed HERE.

The BP satellite pyramid, however, represents a unique conundrum as though it too is one of those inferior "rubble" pyramids (cased in superior casing stones mind you) no different than any other OK pyramid that followed Giza, yet by the same token it incorporates the same corbel vaulted ceiling as most of the great pyramids that could only have been built as we are told by a lost civilization. How could this be? 

Interior schematic of the satellite pyramid:  
TheBen5.gif

Interior, corbelled ceiling:
901cfaf86e3ed107156b9fab1885ff46.jpg
Large Photo
Large Photo
Large Photo
Large Photo

Interior stone work:
p1100934.jpg
p1110995.jpg
909893a733252feb56d35001aceeabb5.jpg
Large Photo
1063.jpg


Exterior Tura limestone "mantle" style casing stones which like G1 also sit on pavement:
p1110079.jpg
p1110081.jpg

More Photos.

On a side note, the satellite pyramid is agreed to have been incapable of containing a burial and as such is at least one pyramid we can point to that was not built as a tomb. 

Regardless, there can be no doubt that the same culture who built the corbel vaulted ceilings of Meidum, Bent, Red and G1 pyramids also built the BP satellite "rubble" pyramid which is otherwise no different than any other OK "rubble" pyramid. If an argument were to be made that the AE found this core and built a "rubble" pyramid around it we can clearly dismiss this as it too, like many of the other "rubble" pyramids, is encased in fine cut limestone casing stones little different than G1. And though the "rubble" pyramids that followed Giza did not use the corbel design, interestingly neither did G2 or G3, so we can dispel with this argument as well as in context this technology only appears with G1 and before.

As has been said many times, by myself and many others, G1 does not exists in a vacuum. Yes it is "special" and there are things about it we marvel at above all others, but there can be no doubt it is part of a larger congruity that not only includes the other great pyramids, but also the inferior "rubble" pyramids of the OK as well. This is what people need to get through their heads and instead of ignoring reality so their pet theories can survive, the greater context in which G1 resides must be accounted for. Ignoring it will not do.   

This also goes for all these nonsensical "novel ideas" of how G1 was built that litter these boards time and again, often involving bewilderingly obtuse water systems. All this effort put into explaining how G1 was built yet none for the rest as if they were apples and oranges yet nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, G1 has big core blocks but so do all the other great pyramids. Yes G1 is the tallest but even some of the Giza satellite pyramids were originally over 100ft high. How were they built? If one is going to make up some inane water construction scheme for G1 it has to also apply to the rest of the Giza pyramids as well as Medium and Dahshur, and yes, even the "rubble" ones as well. But I assume this is why everything other than G1 is ignored as to accept this reality means that otherwise such fantasies instantly become null and void. While G1 no doubt incorporates elements that set it apart from the rest, and yes it is the largest pyramid (barely), the same construction principles apply to all the rest so to explain G1 one must explain them all. 

6190.jpg?v=1569515973
593c2199dfd74358b420e53548868d5f_th.jpg
bentpyramidfromthenorthwest.jpg?w=610
medium.jpg
pyra-factslunasbig.jpg
640px-Satellite_pyramid_of_the_Bent_Pyra

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that exposition Thanos.  Is there any structural/engineering reason why the corbelled vault may have been discontinued post G1, that you know of?  Just curious.  It seems pretty durable after all.

And how are we to consider the purpose of the Bent pyramid satellite, then, since a tomb is ruled out.  That's some beautiful masonry in the descending passage, but I'm assuming it's of small dimensions and would preclude any easy ritual access.  A cenotaph, again?  Storage?   I'm bewildered tbh.

Edited by The Wistman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

Thanks for that exposition Thanos.  Is there any structural/engineering reason why the corbelled vault may have been discontinued post G1, that you know of?  Just curious.  It seems pretty durable after all.

And how are we to consider the purpose of the Bent pyramid satellite, then, since a tomb is ruled out.  That's some beautiful masonry in the descending passage, but I'm assuming it's of small dimensions and would preclude any easy ritual access.  A cenotaph, again?  Storage?   I'm bewildered tbh.

I would speculate that it was a cenotaph, uncompleted tomb for a child of the Pharaoh, a favored dwarf, pet? or the King's ka.

1280px-Rhomboidale-satellite.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I would speculate that it was a cenotaph, uncompleted tomb for a child of the Pharaoh, a favored dwarf, pet? or the King's ka.

1280px-Rhomboidale-satellite.jpg

Thanks @Hanslune for the diagram and your informed speculation.  

I see the shaft in the corbelled chamber....isn't that for a burial?   Is that the only reason they've determined it wasn't a tomb, becaue no burial ever took place in it, according to the OP?

 

Edited by The Wistman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeeps folks, sorry for the poorly worded question.  My bad.  Should be

According to the OP the pyramid is agreed to have been incapable of containing a burial.  Why is that?  Doesn't the shaft in the corbelled chamber seem to indicate it was meant for one?

:rolleyes:

 

 

Edited by The Wistman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Wistman said:

Yeeps folks, sorry for the poorly worded question.  My bad.  Should be

According to the OP the pyramid is agreed to have been incapable of containing a burial.  Why is that?  Doesn't the shaft in the corbelled chamber seem to indicate it was meant for one?

:rolleyes:

 

 

You gonna have to ask the OP. I'm unsure of the assumptions or evidence for that statement. It might be in the discussion thread he posted a link for but I don't have time to read it until tomorrow. The AE did seem to build pyramids that don't - to our eyes seem to have any obvious 'purpose', like G1-d, which is much smaller than the one in question.

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Wistman said:

Thanks for that exposition Thanos.  Is there any structural/engineering reason why the corbelled vault may have been discontinued post G1, that you know of?  Just curious.  It seems pretty durable after all.

And how are we to consider the purpose of the Bent pyramid satellite, then, since a tomb is ruled out.  That's some beautiful masonry in the descending passage, but I'm assuming it's of small dimensions and would preclude any easy ritual access.  A cenotaph, again?  Storage?   I'm bewildered tbh.

Thank you for reading it.  

I don't know of any reason its was discontinued. The upper relieving chamber of G1 has a gabled roof which is the norm in one form or another for vaulted ceilings afterwards, but the corbel ceiling allows for a much higher vault and is obviously very stable so why it was abandoned is a bit of a mystery I think. 

It is thought to be a cenotaph of one kind or another. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Wistman said:

Yeeps folks, sorry for the poorly worded question.  My bad.  Should be

According to the OP the pyramid is agreed to have been incapable of containing a burial.  Why is that?  Doesn't the shaft in the corbelled chamber seem to indicate it was meant for one?

:rolleyes:

I think this was discussed here: If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

To quote Lehner: "Just as in the South tomb of Djoser, the burial chamber of the satellite pyrmaid is far too small to contain a human burial".

Lehner goes on to suggest it may have been for the "ritual interment of a stature of the king" though he does not give a reason why this may be.  

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2020 at 10:25 PM, Thanos5150 said:

 

As has been said many times, by myself and many others, G1 does not exists in a vacuum. Yes it is "special" and there are things about it we marvel at above all others, but there can be no doubt it is part of a larger congruity that not only includes the other great pyramids, but also the inferior "rubble" pyramids of the OK as well. This is what people need to get through their heads and instead of ignoring reality so their pet theories can survive, the greater context in which G1 resides must be accounted for. Ignoring it will not do.   

This also goes for all these nonsensical "novel ideas" of how G1 was built that litter these boards time and again, often involving bewilderingly obtuse water systems. All this effort put into explaining how G1 was built yet none for the rest as if they were apples and oranges yet nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, G1 has big core blocks but so do all the other great pyramids. Yes G1 is the tallest but even some of the Giza satellite pyramids were originally over 100ft high. How were they built? If one is going to make up some inane water construction scheme for G1 it has to also apply to the rest of the Giza pyramids as well as Medium and Dahshur, and yes, even the "rubble" ones as well. But I assume this is why everything other than G1 is ignored as to accept this reality means that otherwise such fantasies instantly become null and void. While G1 no doubt incorporates elements that set it apart from the rest, and yes it is the largest pyramid (barely), the same construction principles apply to all the rest so to explain G1 one must explain them all. 

Simple math says G1 and all the great pyramids are completely different than the tiny pyramids.  It IS apples and oranges but most people are forgetting the math because we are unaccustomed to thinking in such ways.  

That the pyramids exist is not of itself surprising.  That they could quarry so much stone and float huge blocks across and down the Nile is quite impressive but not truly surprising.  

What is surprising and has never been explained is how it could have been possible to lift such vast quantities of stone without also leaving ample and diverse evidence for how it was done.  It is entirely reasonable to suppose they had sufficient manpower to lift 6 1/2 million tons to 480' but the application of all this work in a tiny 13 acre site where most of the room was taken up by sloped pyramid walls or nearly vertical is problematical.  Every worker takes up space.  

I think most people who don't see this problem are simply not looking at the math.  Math is more than mere numbers but is quantified logic and it says that building a 480' pyramid is far more difficult than just getting more stone. This is because the total work, the total energy requirement, isn't dependent solely on the height but rather on the length time the width, times the height.  A 48' pyramid doesn't require 1/ 10th the work of a 480' pyramid it requires a tiny fraction of the total work.  This fraction is dependent on the efficiency of the means used to lift the stones because in the real world of using primitive tools, knowledge, and materials most means to lift stones would result is far lower efficiency as height is increased.  A 480' pyramid could require a 1000 times more work than a 48' pyramid yet the tiny one would still be quite impressive.  

There are many requirements for ANY hypothesis for how these were constructed.  For instance we know they were cladded and that the builders lacked technology for constructing them underneath mountains of tafla and slippery surfaces.  We know that these exist in a context that includes significant physical evidence like the bifurcated sides, underlying steps, and probable tower construction.  Everything must fit but current "theory" merely handwaves the evidence and the math.  They propose vast armies of workers which might indeed be possible but for which there isn't a shred of evidence.  They propose highly inefficient means and even that this means is the only possible means despite the evidence which clearly shows stones were pulled straight up the sides of five step pyramids one step at a time.  This is the "novel idea".  It is very long in the tooth but this is the nature of ideas; bad ones can last just as long as good.  In the end bad ideas go away like the horse and buggy whip and they are replaced by new ones.  

Edited by cladking
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, cladking said:

.  They propose highly inefficient means and even that this means is the only possible means despite the evidence which clearly shows stones were pulled straight up the sides of five step pyramids one step at a time.  This is the "novel idea".  It is very long in the tooth but this is the nature of ideas; bad ones can last just as long as good. 

The problem with your endlessly claiming this is that you NEVER - EVER - do the math. We have been waiting for nearly fifteen years for your detailed engineering studies, diagrams and details. It is quite clear from your earlier attempts at trying to make up evidence that you don't understand your own claim.

So in other words all you EVER do is make the claim then run off.

You have not evidence to support your idea. You didn't in 2006 and you still don't. You have however bored everyone to death by repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

You have a long history of making baseless and in most cases silly claims.

So show us the complete evidence of a geyser powered funicular at the Dahsur satellite pyramid with topographical map showing where it ran?

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2020 at 11:10 AM, The Wistman said:

.... Is there any structural/engineering reason why the corbelled vault may have been discontinued post G1, that you know of?  Just curious.  It seems pretty durable after all.

 

Corbelled vaults are elongated corbelled false-arches; so the following discussion about supporting heavy overhead weight above corbelled false-arches - will apply also as a handicap for building corbelled vaults.  Heavy abutment material (on both sides of the vault) is needed to keep the sides of a corbelled vault from collapsing.  
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbel_arch

Although an improvement in load-bearing efficiency over the post and lintel design, corbeled arches are not entirely self-supporting structures, and the corbeled arch is sometimes termed a false arch for this reason. Different from "true" arches, "false" or corbelled arches are built of horizontally laid stones or bricks, not of wedge-shaped voussoirs converging towards, and being held together by a central keystone. Unlike "true" arches, not all of the structure's tensile stresses caused by the weight of the superstructure are transformed into compressive stresses.

Corbel arches and vaults require significantly thickened walls and an abutment of other stone or fill to counteract the effects of gravity, which otherwise would tend to collapse each side of the archway inwards.

mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Fae%2FUgarit_Corbel.jpg%2F250px-Ugarit_Corbel.jpg&t=1601936938&ymreqid=3453cafd-c5bc-1b5b-2ce3-3e00c3010000&sig=uAoFuNGnWoa2iJX7LBqG1w--~D

Royal Palace of Ugarit, bronze age, Syria

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supposedly, the Pyramid form is an elaboration on the tiered mastaba, the burial chamber of which was underground, beneath the structure, which was commemorative in purpose, marking the burial site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/3/2020 at 9:25 PM, Thanos5150 said:

most of the great pyramids that could only have been built as we are told by a lost civilization.

 

On 10/3/2020 at 9:25 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Regardless, there can be no doubt that the same culture who built the corbel vaulted ceilings of Meidum, Bent, Red and G1 pyramids also built the BP satellite "rubble" pyramid which is otherwise no different than any other OK "rubble" pyramid.

Hi Thanos

I noticed that you made this claim twice and have been wondering if there was a particular reason for it  as your question could have been made without it if your only concern is construction techniques?

 Not trying to sidetrack or create friction just asking as it seemed to stand out in your op.

jmccr8

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Thanos

I noticed that you made this claim twice and have been wondering if there was a particular reason for it  as your question could have been made without it if your only concern is construction techniques?

 Not trying to sidetrack or create friction just asking as it seemed to stand out in your op.

jmccr8

Hello jmccr8. 

I'm not sure what you mean. I am not making the claim "....most of the great pyramids that could only have been built as we are told by a lost civilization" but rather noting the position of the fringe who do. The OP uses the BP satellite pyramid as an argument against this notion. The complete quote:

Quote

 

At first glance, the satellite pyramid would certainly appear be yet another one of those inferior "rubble pyramids" which some claim is the hallmark of demarcation between what was supposedly built by a "lost civilization" and what was built by the AE:

640px-Satellite_pyramid_of_the_Bent_Pyra

Discussed HERE.

The BP satellite pyramid, however, represents a unique conundrum as though it too is one of those inferior "rubble" pyramids (cased in superior casing stones mind you) no different than any other OK pyramid that followed Giza, yet by the same token it incorporates the same corbel vaulted ceiling as most of the great pyramids that could only have been built as we are told by a lost civilization. How could this be? 

 

So the question, a thought exercise for those who believe such things, is if the "inferior rubble pyramids" were supposedly built by the AE and the great pyramids by the LC, for no other reason than the belief the AE could not do such things, then how could they otherwise be built using the same techniques, architectural features, and technology if this were true? And by the same token, if the AE could do these things then what could they not do? 

"Regardless, there can be no doubt that the same culture who built the corbel vaulted ceilings of Meidum, Bent, Red and G1 pyramids also built the BP satellite "rubble" pyramid which is otherwise no different than any other OK "rubble" pyramid." 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thanos5150 said:

Hello jmccr8. 

I'm not sure what you mean. I am not making the claim "....most of the great pyramids that could only have been built as we are told by a lost civilization" but rather noting the position of the fringe who do. The OP uses the BP satellite pyramid as an argument against this notion. The complete quote:

So the question, a thought exercise for those who believe such things, is if the "inferior rubble pyramids" were supposedly built by the AE and the great pyramids by the LC, for no other reason than the belief the AE could not do such things, then how could they otherwise be built using the same techniques, architectural features, and technology if this were true? And by the same token, if the AE could do these things then what could they not do? 

"Regardless, there can be no doubt that the same culture who built the corbel vaulted ceilings of Meidum, Bent, Red and G1 pyramids also built the BP satellite "rubble" pyramid which is otherwise no different than any other OK "rubble" pyramid." 

Hi Thanos

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

jmccr8

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Thanos

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

jmccr8

My pleasure. Thank you for reading. 

Also from the OP:

Quote

As has been said many times, by myself and many others, G1 does not exist[] in a vacuum. Yes it is "special" and there are things about it we marvel at above all others, but there can be no doubt it is part of a larger congruity that not only includes the other great pyramids, but also the inferior "rubble" pyramids of the OK as well. This is what people need to get through their heads and instead of ignoring reality so their pet theories can survive, the greater context in which G1 resides must be accounted for. Ignoring it will not do.

  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thanos5150 said:

My pleasure. Thank you for reading. 

Also from the OP:

  

 

Hi Thanos

I have no argument with any of your post as I consider the current understanding of the AE culture to be reliable.

jmccr8

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Thanos

I have no argument with any of your post as I consider the current understanding of the AE culture to be reliable.

jmccr8

Reliable enough to rule out most alternative explanations as to who/how/when they built with foremost among them an antediluvian LC.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A preamble to the OP: 

If a Lost Civilization Built the Great Pyramids- How did the AE Build the Rest?

Quote

 

There are some who believe the great pyramids of Giza and Dahshur were built by a lost civilization thousands if not tens of thousands of years before the Dynastic period and that the inferior "rubble pyramids" that came after Giza were what was made by the lowly Egyptians. But the question ignored, assuming this is true, how then did the AE build their pyramids?  

For example, the pyramid of the early 5th Dynasty pharaoh Sahure located at Abusir near Saqqara:
Pyramid-complex-of-Sahure-view-to-the-we

As unimpressive as it may look today due to it being heavily pillaged for stone in ancient times including most of its fine white casing stones, it is believed to have originally been approximately 154ft high with a base of 258ft.

The core is made of steps of rough cut limestone blocks often held together with mortar with the largest blocks weighing upwards of 2 tons each. Most impressive is the interior whose descending passage was clad in fine cut granite with massive limestone roof beams. The burial chamber, however, contains several of the largest stones known in the ancient world estimated to weight upwards of 200 tons each. 
320px-Sahure_Pyramid.png
Entrance Photo

The temple complex is one of the most impressive in ancient Egypt employing many large granite pillars and blocks including a large basalt floor like the mortuary temple at G1. 

How did the AE build these pyramids? How did they cut, transport, and lift the blocks? What tools did they use to shape the interior stones and temple blocks, including granite, no different than the lost civilization did with the great pyramids? 

We are told the AE did not use ramps, cranes, or any kind of mechanical advantage- so how then did build a pyramid 154ft high including cladding it in limestone casing stones? How did they cut and move the granite to line the inner passage and roof it with massive blocks? As we are also told the AE could not cut granite and all granite was pilfered from this lost civilization, which if so, still does not answer the question how they moved them to line the chamber with the same precision as seen in the great pyramids. How did they move and erect a series of 200 ton limestone blocks configured like the QC, RC, and entrance of G1?

5th Dynasty Pyramid of Unas (141'x 189'):
2064215896_418d1f0fdc.jpg
4300-Year_Pyramid_of_Unas_reopened_publi

5th Dynasty Pyramid of Neferirkare (239' x 344')
abu_sir_neferirkare02.jpg
Massive chamber ceiling blocks:
320px-Neferirkare-Pyramide.png

On and on it goes. There were at least a dozen stone pyramids built in the 5th and 6th Dynasties ranging in estimated height from 141-239ft. While their core blocks are rough cut and on average smaller than those used to build the great pyramids, many employed fine casing stones, some even of granite, with fine cut and joined lined interiors of both granite and limestone often massive blocks some more than twice as large as any found in the great pyramids. 

So much nonsensical effort is made to concoct various schemes as to how the lost civilization built the great pyramids yet none to show how the AE built the rest. So, how did the AE build these "inferior rubble pyramids"?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2020 at 7:35 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Thank you for reading it.  

I don't know of any reason its was discontinued. The upper relieving chamber of G1 has a gabled roof which is the norm in one form or another for vaulted ceilings afterwards, but the corbel ceiling allows for a much higher vault and is obviously very stable so why it was abandoned is a bit of a mystery I think. 

It is thought to be a cenotaph of one kind or another. 

I can think of several reasons...

#1... same architectural group (father/son or whomever) and it was part of the standard plan

#2...  different materials.  I don't think they were using the same huge stone blocks... and more rubble on the interior.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Reliable enough to rule out most alternative explanations as to who/how/when they built with foremost among them an antediluvian LC.  

So your contention appears to be that since it is apparent that  every pyramid might have been built with similar features and by the same culture then it follows that all the untested assumptions about the pyramids must be true.

Meanwhile you haven't addressed here or elsewhere that the work required to built a pyramid IS BY DEFINITION the width times the length times the height times the weight.  As the size expands a tiny bit, the total work grows geometrically.  As the size grows the efficiency decreases as well.  As pyramids get larger the amount of material that would have to be hauled up ramps grows geometrically so the size of the ramps would have had to grow geometrically as well.  This is just simple math; the ancient tyranny of numbers.  The evidence clearly shows stones were pulled straight up the sides unless you have a better explanation for what you call "tower and core" construction.  

One of the great benefits of building these by the means actually in evidence is that as the size increases there is relatively little decrease in efficiency lifting the stones.  Using this means to build the tiny little piles of rubble would hardly save any work compared to other possibilities but using it on large structures is the ONLY thing that made them possible at all.  The evidence implies even the tiny ones were built this way because this was how they  built pyramids.  Pyramids are stepped because it's far easier to lift stones pulling them up steps than any other possibilities.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, cladking said:

The evidence clearly shows stones were pulled straight up the sides unless you have a better explanation for what you call "tower and core" construction. 

Well please show this evidence then? What you refuse to do so? Yeah we know you've been making that claim all these years then run away when you are asked to support what you say.

 

Quote

  The evidence implies even the tiny ones were built this way because this was how they  built pyramids.  Pyramids are stepped because it's far easier to lift stones pulling them up steps than any other possibilities.  

...and when will you present the detailed evidence, diagrams, math and research that shows this?

 

15 years and counting

 

LOL

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

290px-All_Gizah_Pyramids.jpg

L x W x H x W

times the reciprocal of the efficiency.

Every pyramid is stepped. 

The were no overseers of stone draggers or overseers of ramp builders.  They buried people with jobs reflective of how the pyramids were actually built.  There are many such jobs but one of the more interesting is "Overseer of the Side of the Pyramid".  It is wholly nonsensical to believe such a job entailed receiving stones on a spiral ramp and delivering them higher up the spiral.  Overseers must BY DEFINITION have control over input and output.  

People need to review the actual evidence and logic because 19th  century assumptions have failed.   This is why carbon dating and all of science are "conspiring" to show Egyptology is wrong.   

 

This argument is just a rehashing of the "architectural" argument that says mastabas were tombs > pyramids are stacked mastabas > therefore pyramids are tombs.  It is imposing a "cultural context" that never existed.  Just because it's improbable that aliens built the pyramids it does not follow that all Egyptological assumptions are correct.  

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, cladking said:

Every pyramid is stepped.

Really? So G1-d is stepped? Please show evidence that it is. Is Cestius' pyramid stepped? The ones in the Sudan? Again another fake claim.

Quote

The were no overseers of stone draggers or overseers of ramp builders. 

You mean the guys who were overseers of the sides as you mentioned? Sounds like they were that person. Were there geyser powered funiculars coming in from the four sides? Show us on a topographcial map where they ran from the quarries to the pyramid? What you refuse?...... Chuckle, yeah we know....

Were there any overseers of funiculars?

Quote

 This is why carbon dating and all of science are "conspiring" to show Egyptology is wrong.   

Bold claims - got any evidence? Reminder Cladking - your opinion isn't evidence

Cladking if this is going to be one of your threads where you just restate all your old goofy claims and present no evidence is there any reason why we shouldn't just yawn from boredom, laugh and ignore you?

 

Edited by Hanslune
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I can think of several reasons...

#1... same architectural group (father/son or whomever) and it was part of the standard plan

#2...  different materials.  I don't think they were using the same huge stone blocks... and more rubble on the interior.

Unfortunately that does not mean they are good ones. 

#1...Khafre is Khufu's son is he not? Menkaure Khafre's? And so on. And you are saying G2 and G3 were not part of the "same architectural group" let alone the "standard plan"? Abu Roash gives no appearance it used a corbel vault either. 

#2...Which has no bearing on being able to build a corbel vault vs gable. "Huge bocks"- compared to what...? Instead of just "thinking" maybe you should look before you make these comments. G2 and G3 are no different than those that came before.  The BP satellite pyramid, the subject and title of the OP, as said is one of those "more rubble on the interior" types. 

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.