Course thicknesses of the Great Pyramid

[cormac mac airt]

3 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Where are the data for courses 66 & 67?  Have you concealed this secret information because it shows that Cl*ddy was right all along?   (Don't worry - I won't tell him.)

How many courses are / were there on the Great Pyramid?  I've seen measurements for 201 up to 210, and several articles contradicting each other.  Could someone give a link to a definitive, universally agreed set of measurements?  It should then be child's play to confirm (or refute) Cl*ddy's ideas, once and for all.

Of course (no pun intended, but - wow! he's good) Cl*d's next line of defence will be: "Why would the Egyptians waste time and effort making steps identical heights, knowing they were about to cover them up?  I never said there were five steps.  I never said they were exactly 81'3'' tall.  I didn't write that.  I said they used the lost wax method to build the casing first, leaving a hole in the top through which they poured infill.  That's what the sinister, suppressed Surprisingly Sturdy Step-free Pyramid Secret Instructions - For Pharaoh's Eyes Only says, or would have said if it hadn't been destroyed 3000 years ago (but I can still read it)."

Interestingly¹ I've found one link that claims to see a pattern of 19 sections - the same number I made up without evidence for my previous post.  Spooky or what?  (Or inevitable, given the number and range of uneducated claims by cl*dking cranks?)

https://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-pyramid/stonecourses-pyramid.html#:~:text=According to the methods that,a total of 19 sections.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00004-016-0296-6 

 

¹ Alright then, not interesting at all.

Here you go: 

67	2146.9	2111.9	35
66	2111.9	2088.2	23.7

cormac                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Edited February 23, 2021 by cormac mac airt
Made easier to read

[cladking]

7 hours ago, aarvai said:

Is the gravimetric scan your only source for the step height of 81' 3"? That scan is pretty coarse, so I don't think you can claim an accuracy of 1" for the step height. 81' 3" isn't an integer multiple of cubits. Why would the Egyptians use this instead of just rounding to the nearest cubit? I think you're also assuming that all the steps are the same height, but maybe they aren't.

I said the exact same thing in every post.  81' 3" is a "calculated" height of steps.  The actual concrete steps are at the course right below this calculated height.  81' 3" is the closest approximation to the Egyptian word "3b3w" which means something like manifested height of the horizons.  I can't get out there and measure it with a tape ruler and the builders, while knowing its height, never actually recorded it other than in words, not numbers.  This calculated height should be the same for every step because of the way they built.  This height was not only calculated for every step but this is the altitude at which stones could be lifted no higher.  Steps are shorter or they couldn't have lifted more stones above 81' 3".  The steps were the lifting device.  This is simply the nature of using counterweights to lift; you can't lift higher than the total run of the counterweight.  The counterweight moved 100' on the steep side moving the load 100' and 81' 3" vertically.  Calculated, not measured.  

Of course you're right that the scan is too course to measure this.  But it is not too course to calculate where exactly the steps are if you already know steps must be the same height.  They are exactly right below 81' 3" intervals as I have said repeatedly.  These intervals define steps which each have thin courses at the top and most thicker courses are at the bottoms.  There are other causations for specific course thicknesses as well but it would seem that for the main part they used what was easy.   Your contention that they picked courses based on personnel concerns is quite plausible but I believe it was principally based on structural and step height concerns, They simply want heavier courses where the fit the interior architecture, at the bottoms of steps, and lower in the pyramid.  This was principally for stability and the ability to withstand earth movement, especially the p-wave of earthquakes.   

Edited February 23, 2021 by cladking

[cormac mac airt]

32 minutes ago, cladking said:

I said the exact same thing in every post.  81' 3" is a "calculated" height of steps.  The actual concrete steps are at the course right below this calculated height.  81' 3" is the closest approximation to the Egyptian word "3b3w" which means something like manifested height of the horizons.  I can't get out there and measure it with a tape ruler and the builders, while knowing its height, never actually recorded it other than in words, not numbers.  This calculated height should be the same for every step because of the way they built.  This height was not only calculated for every step but this is the altitude at which stones could be lifted no higher.  Steps are shorter or they couldn't have lifted more stones above 81' 3".  The steps were the lifting device.  This is simply the nature of using counterweights to lift; you can't lift higher than the total run of the counterweight.  The counterweight moved 100' on the steep side moving the load 100' and 81' 3" vertically.  Calculated, not measured.  

Of course you're right that the scan is too course to measure this.  But it is not too course to calculate where exactly the steps are if you already know steps must be the same height.  They are exactly right below 81' 3" intervals as I have said repeatedly.  These intervals define steps which each have thin courses at the top and most thicker courses are at the bottoms.  There are other causations for specific course thicknesses as well but it would seem that for the main part they used what was easy.   Your contention that they picked courses based on personnel concerns is quite plausible but I believe it was principally based on structural and step height concerns, They simply want heavier courses where the fit the interior architecture, at the bottoms of steps, and lower in the pyramid.  This was principally for stability and the ability to withstand earth movement, especially the p-wave of earthquakes.   

If that were true then they would have absolutely NOTHING to do with the gravimetric scan so you can stop using it to say/mean something it doesn't. Also your inability to read hieroglyphics means that you are therefore incapable of translating what they mean so any such "translation" can be summarily dismissed as meaningless, making you about as useless a translator as Zechariah Sitchin. You might want to try coming up with a new fiction, this one was always DOA. 

cormac

[Hanslune]

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Please excuse my ignorance, but is there even evidence that the entire structure (GP1) is made of blocks, rather then rubble and fill for maybe half of it?

Hey it appears to mainly be blocks but there are places we can see they used smaller pieces and perhaps even sand in the interior.

Here is an image with some 'rubble' smaller stones and use of gypsum mortar. Third tier up from the bottom.

[Hanslune]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

Deleted oft repeated nonsense

'3b3w' yeah says the guy who cannot read Egyptian - Cladking the art of lying requires one that the person be believable - you are not. You are widely considered a third class pseudologue, prevaricator and maligner.

Second: What he says must be believable - what you say is complete crap

So you are hopelessly spewing nonsense that no one is ever going to believe - why do you think that on forum after forum people just stop talking to you? Why is that you suppose?

SECRET ANSWER: Rational adults don't like to be lied to

[cormac mac airt]

22 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Hey it appears to mainly be blocks but there are places we can see they used smaller pieces and perhaps even sand in the interior.

Here is an image with some 'rubble' smaller stones and use of gypsum mortar. Third tier up from the bottom.

The niche in the northeast corner IIRC is another good place to see their "slop factor". 

cormac

Edited February 23, 2021 by cormac mac airt
spelling

[Hanslune]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The niche in the northeast corner IIRC is another good place to see their "slot factor". 

cormac

Yeah and for lurkers who might know about that niche in the NE corner

 

Quote

My climb was to investigate another piece of evidence mentioned in the article--a notch about 270 feet up the pyramid's northeast edge. Clearly visible from the ground, the notch measures about 18 feet on each side and is about 20 feet high. Is the notch merely the result of stone robbing, when the finely cut white limestone casing blocks were stripped from the exterior of the pyramid in antiquity? Or was it part of a system to raise blocks via the internal ramp, the remains of a corner left open so blocks could be turned to continue their journey up the next flight of the internal ramp? A closer look was needed, and while filming a National Geographic Channel documentary (Unlocking the Great Pyramid) on the Giza Plateau, we obtained permission to climb up to the notch. The effort was rewarded with discoveries that may help solve this riddle.

https://archive.archaeology.org/0907/etc/khufu_pyramid.html

[cormac mac airt]

5 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Where are the data for courses 66 & 67?  Have you concealed this secret information because it shows that Cl*ddy was right all along?   (Don't worry - I won't tell him.)

How many courses are / were there on the Great Pyramid?  I've seen measurements for 201 up to 210, and several articles contradicting each other.  Could someone give a link to a definitive, universally agreed set of measurements?  It should then be child's play to confirm (or refute) Cl*ddy's ideas, once and for all.

Of course (no pun intended, but - wow! he's good) Cl*d's next line of defence will be: "Why would the Egyptians waste time and effort making steps identical heights, knowing they were about to cover them up?  I never said there were five steps.  I never said they were exactly 81'3'' tall.  I didn't write that.  I said they used the lost wax method to build the casing first, leaving a hole in the top through which they poured infill.  That's what the sinister, suppressed Surprisingly Sturdy Step-free Pyramid Secret Instructions - For Pharaoh's Eyes Only says, or would have said if it hadn't been destroyed 3000 years ago (but I can still read it)."

Interestingly¹ I've found one link that claims to see a pattern of 19 sections - the same number I made up without evidence for my previous post.  Spooky or what?  (Or inevitable, given the number and range of uneducated claims by cl*dking cranks?)

https://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-pyramid/stonecourses-pyramid.html#:~:text=According to the methods that,a total of 19 sections.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00004-016-0296-6 

 

¹ Alright then, not interesting at all.

To get back to your question AFAIK academics are reasonably consistent in claiming 210 levels for the GP. I myself have calculated two different ways with variations of the Royal Cubit with an estimated overall height in levels of 207 or 209 levels respectively. I lean more to 209 levels myself. 

cormac

[Gaden]

9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

No DieChecker, there’s not. In many places gaps of various dimensions can be seen between blocks, both with and without adequate mortar and smaller blocks/pieces filling in between them. And that doesn’t even take into account the natural massif that is a significant portion of the base of the GP. 
 

cormac

 Which is why I've always questioned the amount of stones required and the rate of placement required. When people speak of the number of stones and the resulting rate of placement, they simply use the volume of a pyramid to calculate it. I have never seen anyone subtract any amount from that total. Furthermore, the size of the massif and the volume of fill would be total speculation. Realistically, it could be as much as half the total volume, but, we just don't know. 

[cormac mac airt]

8 minutes ago, Gaden said:

 Which is why I've always questioned the amount of stones required and the rate of placement required. When people speak of the number of stones and the resulting rate of placement, they simply use the volume of a pyramid to calculate it. I have never seen anyone subtract any amount from that total. Furthermore, the size of the massif and the volume of fill would be total speculation. Realistically, it could be as much as half the total volume, but, we just don't know. 

All very true which is why I've even taken 4 of the most well known estimates for the massif, minus mortar and passages, and noticed that they reduce the overall estimated 2.5 million stones to, in order: 

Eyth:                  1,348,633.70

Dormion:            1,595,874.23

Raynaud:           1,034,460.67

Flinders Petrie:  1,537,137.53

Needless to say moving an estimated 40 - 50 percent less stone over some 20+ years isn't outside the realm of being doable. 

cormac

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Gaden said:

 Which is why I've always questioned the amount of stones required and the rate of placement required. When people speak of the number of stones and the resulting rate of placement, they simply use the volume of a pyramid to calculate it. I have never seen anyone subtract any amount from that total. Furthermore, the size of the massif and the volume of fill would be total speculation. Realistically, it could be as much as half the total volume, but, we just don't know. 

If there is a massif, it is irrelevant to block placement.  The stones at the bottom are easy anyway since they require no effort to lift and only to overcome the force of friction. 

No one has ever been able to show there is any sort of "mountain" under the Great Pyramid.  There is apparently a gentle rise but even this is unproven.  You can't lift up the pyramid and look.  

Again it is irrelevant anyway because it's the stones at the top that required huge amounts of work to lift,  This is first grade physics.  

[cladking]

4 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

If that were true then they would have absolutely NOTHING to do with the gravimetric scan so you can stop using it to say/mean something it doesn't. Also your inability to read hieroglyphics means that you are therefore incapable of translating what they mean so any such "translation" can be summarily dismissed as meaningless, making you about as useless a translator as Zechariah Sitchin. You might want to try coming up with a new fiction, this one was always DOA. 

cormac

Again the lines in the gravimetric scan are parallel to the base.  You can claim you won this argument just like you claimed infrared can't see into the pyramid but you still lost both of these argu8ments.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for lines parallel to the base in the plan  view of a pyramid to depict a sloping ramp.  You don't understand this but that makes it no less true.   I've explained it in dozens of ways just like I've explained the nature of friction or why a plane can take off from a moving conveyor but if your models are flawed then you can't see it.  Your model of infrared technology is equally flawed.   Your model of pyramid building is flawed and for some reason you can't see that course thicknesses vary by multiples of 80' altitude. 

The actual gravimetric scan and the leaked infrared information all support my models.  They contradict Egyptological models, interpretations and assumptions.  There are no correct predictions by Egyptological models but I predicted the hot spots in several places as far back as 2007.  I still can't find the best of them but everyone is so busy insulting and demeaning non-believers they don't seek predictions or elaborations.   Course thicknesses are mostly explained but we are never going to know exactly why they chose every single individual course,  Why does a mason select the brick he does while there are hundreds to choose from?  Why does a carpenter use one two by four then another.  There were countless reasons for the thickness of every single course and some are certainly related more to coincidence than anything else.   No doubt the amount of time and manpower available sometimes played at least a small role but respecting 80' intervals IS OBVIOUSLY  key since the vast majority of courses DO respect 80' increments.  

 

Egyptology is wrong across the board so they never noticed grooves, triangles, steps and almost everyother feature of the pyramids which have all been found by outsiders.  They are so busy inventing a "cultural context" that never existed they don't have time to study the pyramids.  They scoff at other scientists and are hostile to all outside opinions.  Meanwhile they drill holes in everything and if it is already a hole they pump it full of concrete.   

Edited February 23, 2021 by cladking

[cladking]

I'm sure nobody will ask where I made accurate predictions but I spent a few minutews looking and found a few,

Quote

 

I'm not really hoping to see anything but am predicting there will be heat transfer spots

at 81' 3" and at 162' 6". These spots will be right on the centerlines. If any appear at the

corners it would be fascinating. If these exposures are sufficiently long terms there would

also be the exact same segmentation into 81' 3" parts as is revealed in the gravimetric scan.

The entrance will prove to be a "hot spot" just like it does on the gravimetric scan.

 

These are all SPOT ON.  Everyone of these predictions was bourn out EXACTLY except no hot spot has yet been reported at 162' 6" except the one on the east side that just happens to be exactly 162' 6" from the NE corner.  

This was stated BEFORE it was even announced they were planning to do the infrared scan for which THEY STILL REFUSE TO RELEASE RESULTS.  

So where is Egyptological opinion?  They won't even let Egyptologists see this data!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[cladking]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

 

 

Egyptology is wrong across the board so they never noticed grooves, triangles, steps and almost every other feature of the pyramids which have all been found by outsiders.  They are so busy inventing a "cultural context" that never existed they don't have time to study the pyramids.  They scoff at other scientists and are hostile to all outside opinions.  Meanwhile they drill holes in everything and if it is already a hole they pump it full of concrete.   

When an Egyptologist looks at the pyramid he can't see the pyramid, the stones, or the courses.  He sees a big tomb and where the ramps mustta been.  He sees primitive and superstitious people exactly like the authors of the "book of the dead" banding together and made strong through their shared beliefs to do the impossible made easier by what must be a mountain under it and the fact that ramps are by definition a labor saving device.  He sees overseers of ramps and the vast majority of people being led about by their betters.  He sees language whose meaning can only be circumscribed because it is so enigmatic, full of errors, and superstitious that modern clear sighted people blanche at the very hint of it.  He is virtually immune to scientific investigation and when facts are turned up they are cast aside as "red herrings", "old wood", "solar heating", or "internal ramps".  He sees no mysteries except how to force incongruous facts into everything he already knows .  He didn't see the hot stones because he never looked and didn't see the triangles because they don't fit his beliefs.  He doesn't see any pattern to the course thicknesses so never bothered to check the quarries for bedding planes.   

People are all different and we each have our own set of beliefs.  There's nothing wrong with Egyptological beliefs other than they are shared by all Egyptologists and they are wrong; or at the very least they are incapable of making predictions about anything at all.  It is exactly this inability to make predictions that leads us all to call Egypt a mystery, but it is only a mystery because the wrong people are in charge of gathering evidence.  I knew many years ago that if they ever did the infrared scan they'd be toast.  Well  stick a fork in it they're done.  

I can still make more predictions but now I actually bookmark a few because nobody cares.  They have been won over by the very thing that made them interested in pyramids and everything from course thicknesses to what the king had for breakfast.  And that is the power of superstition and ignorance.  I believe this is chiefly because we're all superstitious and ignorant and most of us want to believe that this is a good thing.  

This might be my final word on why courses were the thickness they were so I might abandon this thread and let the chorus berate me for being right and for the sin of disagreeing with Egyptology. I believe if a concerted effort were made to find the contents of the scrap pile which used to be adjacent to the east or north side of G1 they would find several to many pieces of limestone with a beveled side, short, 24" high, and about 15" deep.   There would be numerous fragments of this shape.  These are the missing stones that fit in the courses at each step top.  

[cormac mac airt]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

Again the lines in the gravimetric scan are parallel to the base.

Which means you don’t know what the word “parallel” means. Close in some cases,  but “close” ISN’T “parallel”. 
 

Quote

1a: extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant (see EQUIDISTANT sense 1), and not meeting

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parallel

cormac

 

[Harte]

4 hours ago, Gaden said:

 Which is why I've always questioned the amount of stones required and the rate of placement required. When people speak of the number of stones and the resulting rate of placement, they simply use the volume of a pyramid to calculate it. I have never seen anyone subtract any amount from that total. Furthermore, the size of the massif and the volume of fill would be total speculation. Realistically, it could be as much as half the total volume, but, we just don't know. 

The 2.3 million stone estimate comes from Petrie, IIRC, and he estimated it just like you say. But he DID subtract the known chambers and passages of the time.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

 

 

It’s easy enough, and I’ve done it, to take the N/E/W\S sides and calculate 81’ 3” intervals. Doing so shows 1) that said gravimetric lines ARE NOT parallel to the base and 2) many gravimetric lines don’t even come close to the 81’ 3” intervals for the fictional steps. One has to wonder why someone would make it so easy to see they’re making crap up. 
 

cormac

[Gaden]

4 hours ago, Harte said:

The 2.3 million stone estimate comes from Petrie, IIRC, and he estimated it just like you say. But he DID subtract the known chambers and passages of the time.

Harte

 I wonder why he along with all of the other estimators never allowed for the massif or fill? I realize that I could very easily be wrong, but they never even mention them, even though their existence was known, right? The massif is easily seen from outside the pyramid, and sand, rubble, and mortar fill are observed through out.

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Gaden said:

 I wonder why he along with all of the other estimators never allowed for the massif or fill? I realize that I could very easily be wrong, but they never even mention them, even though their existence was known, right? The massif is easily seen from outside the pyramid, and sand, rubble, and mortar fill are observed through out.

Because the larger the number is the fantastical it seems that the ancient Egyptian could have done it. Recently I've seen members of the fringe saying 2.5 instead of 2.3 increasing it even more.

Just in case you haven't seen the study that sets this out here it is: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00319586/document

Cladking denied there was hill there for about a year and half.

Quote

The volume of this original hill is about 64% of the total volume of the monument for the mastaba of Kentkawes,11.5% for the pyramid of Khephren and about 23% for the pyramid of Kheops.

 

[+DieChecker]

12 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

 

 

It’s easy enough, and I’ve done it, to take the N/E/W\S sides and calculate 81’ 3” intervals. Doing so shows 1) that said gravimetric lines ARE NOT parallel to the base and 2) many gravimetric lines don’t even come close to the 81’ 3” intervals for the fictional steps. One has to wonder why someone would make it so easy to see they’re making crap up. 
 

cormac

Out of curiosity, I wonder where that corner pocket/hollow is on those scans. Does it line up with a line?

[Tom1200]

7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Because the larger the number is the fantastical it seems that the ancient Egyptian could have done it. Recently I've seen members of the fringe saying 2.5 instead of 2.3 increasing it even more.

The Ancient Egyptians were meticulous in their record-keeping.  We know exactly how many men were employed building the pyramids - lots (but not as many as you might think).  We know exactly how they were built - (REDACTED FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS).  We know exactly when they were built - during the golden era of pyramid building (give or take 25 years).  We know the pyramids were solar-powered interstellar communication devices beaming messages in the infrared microwave region of the spectrum, modulated by underground river frequencies and powered by piezoelectric bulls at Saqqara.  And we know they used exactly 2 504 362 stones, because records show they lost count on course 56 so they dismantled it and started again, this time using a really big abacus.

We know all this from the sacred records they wrote in invisible hieroglyphs on missing papyri that only Cl*dking knows about, because he can channel the original scribe (Bil^eS, of Stratford-upon-Nile).  May I take this opportunity to express our collective gratitude to Cl*ddy for his persistence and perseverance in bringing his incredible discoveries to the world's attention (whether the world is ready for them or not).

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Avoid making things personal please.

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

The Ancient Egyptians were meticulous in their record-keeping.  We know exactly how many men were employed building the pyramids - lots (but not as many as you might think).  We know exactly how they were built - (REDACTED FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS).  We know exactly when they were built - during the golden era of pyramid building (give or take 25 years).  We know the pyramids were solar-powered interstellar communication devices beaming messages in the infrared microwave region of the spectrum, modulated by underground river frequencies and powered by piezoelectric bulls at Saqqara.  And we know they used exactly 2 504 362 stones, because records show they lost count on course 56 so they dismantled it and started again, this time using a really big abacus.

We know all this from the sacred records they wrote in invisible hieroglyphs on missing papyri that only Cl*dking knows about, because he can channel the original scribe (Bil^eS, of Stratford-upon-Nile).  May I take this opportunity to express our collective gratitude to Cl*ddy for his persistence and perseverance in bringing his incredible discoveries to the world's attention (whether the world is ready for them or not).

Except for the stuff they didn't keep track of; like how many onions do you need to make a duplicate pile the size of Menkaure's pyramid, or how many geysers didn't exist at Giza, or the number of glyphs that needed to be written by a scribe to win the equivalent of the modern world's prize for literature.

[cormac mac airt]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Out of curiosity, I wonder where that corner pocket/hollow is on those scans. Does it line up with a line?

DieChecker, look at the northeast corner of the GP from my previous post. Notice the uppermost candy-cane striped corner? THAT’S where Brier’s opening was found. 
 

cormac

[Hanslune]

22 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

All very true which is why I've even taken 4 of the most well known estimates for the massif, minus mortar and passages, and noticed that they reduce the overall estimated 2.5 million stones to, in order: 

Eyth:                  1,348,633.70

Dormion:            1,595,874.23

Raynaud:           1,034,460.67

Flinders Petrie:  1,537,137.53

Needless to say moving an estimated 40 - 50 percent less stone over some 20+ years isn't outside the realm of being doable. 

cormac

Howdy Cormac do you a link for Raynaud's? I've seen another one of around 900,000 but forget whose that was.