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 -

Great Pyramid designed with 8 sides? Maybe not.


Recommended Posts

This from an Archaeologist (Franck Monnier.) Analysis shows that the "creases" on the faces of the Great Pyramid are not really at the center of each side and could have been created when the Tura limestone casing stones were removed.

The so-called concave faces of the Great Pyramid - Facts and cognitive bias

Harte

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Harte said:

This from an Archaeologist (Franck Monnier.) Analysis shows that the "creases" on the faces of the Great Pyramid are not really at the center of each side and could have been created when the Tura limestone casing stones were removed.

The so-called concave faces of the Great Pyramid - Facts and cognitive bias

Harte

An interesting concept but when my firefox browser sees that link I get chop suey caused by the Arabic. It shows up fine with Microsoft Edge. I'll have to read it again after a day or so.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a wonder anyone can interpret data so poorly or start with assumptions that are so wrong.  

Where does he get the idea that G2 was dismantled from the bottom up?   Who does he think would remove the support for massive stones over his head?  Why would anyone want to remove the stones just to watch them be demolished tumbling down the sides?  Did he even look at the scan before announcing there are no eight sides?   

The scan clearly shows eight sides.  (or at least the one side of data he deigned to include clearly shows two inleaning sides)

I could go on but this study is not worth the effort.  

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

An interesting concept but when my firefox browser sees that link I get chop suey

It won't even load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem opening it on my end. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, cladking said:

It's a wonder anyone can interpret data so poorly or start with assumptions that are so wrong. 

Not to be catty but in truth Cladking you are an expert at doing those two things.

Quote

Where does he get the idea that G2 was dismantled from the bottom up?   Who does he think would remove the support for massive stones over his head?  Why would anyone want to remove the stones just to watch them be demolished tumbling down the sides?  Did he even look at the scan before announcing there are no eight sides?   
 

By looking at it? Do you even know what it looks like? Did they start 3/4s of the way up?

https://smarthistory.org/pyramid-of-khafre-and-the-great-sphinx/

Quote

I could go on but this study is not worth the effort.  

One must remind you that a vast consensus felt the same about your many failed idea.

One thing he did right and that you always refused to do - you always declined to write up your ideas and put them out there. All we got from you was never ending repeats of your claims.

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

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

It won't even load.

It does seem to be a bit twitchy. Chrome works with it too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

It does seem to be a bit twitchy. Chrome works with it too.

I've downloaded the article.

440735667_Screenshot_20220626-062711_AdobeAcrobat.jpg.c2a6703e5ec3c73b06506405129a86b4.jpg

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hanslune said:

An interesting concept but when my firefox browser sees that link I get chop suey caused by the Arabic. It shows up fine with Microsoft Edge. I'll have to read it again after a day or so.

 

 

Keith Hamilton (author of "Waggy's Guides" articles on the GP) suggests another link.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hanslune said:

 

 Did they start 3/4s of the way up?

https://smarthistory.org/pyramid-of-khafre-and-the-great-sphinx/

 

Yes!  Obviously.  Because, as I said, nobody would be willing to remove the supports for massive stones over their heads and because tumbling stones down rough sides would break up the stones being tumbled.  

They went up the corners of the damaged casing stone to as near the top as was safe and worked inward which was safer and allowed a much smoother surface for the stones to (mostly) slide down.  Since they were sliding they had a much lower speed meaning collisions were not so destructive.  

Cladding stones had to be installed from the bottom up and removed from the top down.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 6:59 PM, cladking said:

It's a wonder anyone can interpret data so poorly or start with assumptions that are so wrong.  

Where does he get the idea that G2 was dismantled from the bottom up?   Who does he think would remove the support for massive stones over his head?  Why would anyone want to remove the stones just to watch them be demolished tumbling down the sides?  Did he even look at the scan before announcing there are no eight sides?   

The scan clearly shows eight sides.  (or at least the one side of data he deigned to include clearly shows two inleaning sides)

I could go on but this study is not worth the effort.  

Nice to know you understand exactly how everyone here feels when you decide it’s necessary to post something.

—Jaylemurph 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

Nice to know you understand exactly how everyone here feels when you decide it’s necessary to post something.

—Jaylemurph 

Thanks Jay. That deserved a Thanks and Laugh emoticon both. :tu:
 

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/26/2022 at 12:52 PM, cladking said:

Yes!  Obviously.  Because, as I said, nobody would be willing to remove the supports for massive stones over their heads and because tumbling stones down rough sides would break up the stones being tumbled.  

They went up the corners of the damaged casing stone to as near the top as was safe and worked inward which was safer and allowed a much smoother surface for the stones to (mostly) slide down.  Since they were sliding they had a much lower speed meaning collisions were not so destructive. 

..and then worked down wards leaving the upper stones intact (at least on G2). They did exactly what yous said they didn't  - I believe is this a d'uh moment.. Cladking you do know right that the top part of G2's cladding is STILL THERE?

LOL, I dare you to slide a multi-ton limestone rock down a "51" incline and have it survive intact unless large amounts of sand were already there at the bottom and they removed them after they slid Such 'sliding'  would damage the lower stones. Even then the impact on the sand would have been substantial.

However, why am I trying to have a rational discussion with an internet eccentric!

 

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

Quote

.and then worked down wards leaving the upper stones intact (at least on G2). They did exactly what yous said they didn't  - I believe is this a d'uh moment.. Cladking you do know right that the top part of G2's cladding is STILL THERE?

Look again at the picture.

Stones were already loosened or they couldn't have gotten them off.  They were removed from the corners first and then they moved inward on two sides from each corner.  Where stones were too fragile or dangerous they either changed the course they were working on or even approached it from the other side sine there were four corners.  it was a simple matter of prying off the stones sitting atop the wall so they could slide down.  Remember the casing stone was largely intact so stones did more sliding down and less tumbling.  Some stones would be moving as slowly as 30 MPH at the bottom meaning if they did hit something it wouldn't split the stones.  They could work on three sides while men hauled the fallen stones away on the fourth.  Massive operations require organization.  

You can not strip stones off the bottom of a stone wall.  It's just this simple.  The cladding is distinct from the pyramid and could only have been installed from the bottom up and removed from the top down.  Of course I believe they were installed step by step from the bottom up starting on the top step that was 81' 3".  

 

The picture proves they started at the top since if they did it from the bottom they would not need to have stopped.  All the cladding would be gone.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cladking said:

Look again at the picture.

Stones were already loosened or they couldn't have gotten them off.  They were removed from the corners first and then they moved inward on two sides from each corner.  Where stones were too fragile or dangerous they either changed the course they were working on or even approached it from the other side sine there were four corners.  it was a simple matter of prying off the stones sitting atop the wall so they could slide down.  Remember the casing stone was largely intact so stones did more sliding down and less tumbling.  Some stones would be moving as slowly as 30 MPH at the bottom meaning if they did hit something it wouldn't split the stones.  They could work on three sides while men hauled the fallen stones away on the fourth.  Massive operations require organization.  

Yes that is your speculation, it is your opinion. You weren't there and no knowing about the subject.

Okay show us where the '30 mphs' came from?  Did you just make that up or is based on something

Sending stones hurtling down and hitting other stones would shatter limestone. The more probably lowered them unless they just wanted fragments.

You've never worked with rocks or masonry have you Cladking?

 

13 minutes ago, cladking said:

You can not strip stones off the bottom of a stone wall.  It's just this simple.

No one is saying that Cladking. You can strip the stones of the bottom of pyramid however, or from the top and the bottom and leave the middle. You are trying to make up rules that the AE didn't know about

https://www.dreamstime.com/bent-pyramid-dashur-egypt-built-under-old-kingdom-pharaoh-sneferu-c-bc-unique-example-early-development-couple-walk-image130745930

 

Quote

The picture proves they started at the top since if they did it from the bottom they would not need to have stopped.  All the cladding would be gone.  

No they didn't unless you mean top in near the top than the bottom of G2. You do understand that G2 is not G1?

LOL

For lurkers this is the top of G2.

CE9cSaB.jpg

Yep the cladding stones are still there. Cladking is talking gibberish to try and get away from his claim that they started at the top. The might have for the great pyramid but for G2 and others they did not.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

No one is saying that Cladking. You can strip the stones of the bottom of pyramid however, or from the top and the bottom and leave the middle. You are trying to make up rules that the AE didn't know about

I'm quite confident the Egyptians in the 13th century AD were well aware that you don't tear down a stone wall starting at the bottom.  

You must start at the TOP.  As you can see they couldn't get all the way to the top because the cladding was in too good of shape so they started as close to the top as they could climb up the four corners.  

Stone sliding on stone has a lot of friction.  This friction is even higher if the stone is rough and broken as the cladding stone was.  This high friction would prevent the stones coming down the cladded sides of the pyramids from attaining significant speed.  Remember it is sliding on a 52 degree slope as well so terminal velocity is quite low and any major collisions will slow it much more.  

 

It's hardly impossible to remove a few stones from below but there are more than 100,000 stones missing from G1 and 75,000 from G2.  They would not pry out countless thousands of stones from underneath enormous stones.  It is simply too much work.  No stone is worth the kind of work it would take to remove far less to haul the remnants to Cairo.  

While the evidence stones were removed from the top down is very extensive you might also consider what the pyramid would look like today if they had been.  The lower levels of the pyramid especially toward the centers would be beaten to a pulp.  There would be no square edges because of the bombardment of stones and debris from above.  Even though erosive forces like windblown sand are far more powerful near the bottom it is not in significantly worse shape than higher reaches.  It is quite obvious that the stones had to be and WERE in actuality slid down the cladded sides.  

Edited by cladking
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, cladking said:

I'm quite confident the Egyptians in the 13th century AD were well aware that you don't tear down a stone wall starting at the bottom.  

I'm quite confident that they knew the difference between a wall and pyramid.Bad analogy.

Quote

You must start at the TOP.  As you can see they couldn't get all the way to the top because the cladding was in too good of shape so they started as close to the top as they could climb up the four corners.  

Okay you keep saying that but that didn't happen at Khafre's pyramid the cladding is still there? Do you understand that? Its still on the 'top'.

Do you understand that pyramids exist that have their cladding remove from the bottom while leaving the middle cladding still in place?

Quote

Stone sliding on stone has a lot of friction.  This friction is even higher if the stone is rough and broken as the cladding stone was.  This high friction would prevent the stones coming down the cladded sides of the pyramids from attaining significant speed.  Remember it is sliding on a 52 degree slope as well so terminal velocity is quite low and any major collisions will slow it much more

One word for you: tumbling. I see you fled my question about '30 mph' as suspected you lied about that it was just something you made up - same old same old. You know you COULD do some experiments and see what works - oh wait you don't do experiments - you just make claims.........

Quote

It's hardly impossible to remove a few stones from below but there are more than 100,000 stones missing from G1 and 75,000 from G2.  They would not pry out countless thousands of stones from underneath enormous stones.  It is simply too much work.  No stone is worth the kind of work it would take to remove far less to haul the remnants to Cairo.  

Oh? Show the work forumulations then? Oh, wait you don't do evidence you do claims - claims dismissed. I laugh at your presumption that you would think anyone would believe you.

Yet they DID THAT AS THE PYRAMIDS SHOW. Cladking this extremeshow of forced 'incomprehension' of not know what 'top' means is odd, for even you.

Quote

While the evidence stones were removed from the top down is very extensive you might also consider what the pyramid would look like today if they had been.  The lower levels of the pyramid especially toward the centers would be beaten to a pulp.  There would be no square edges because of the bombardment of stones and debris from above.  Even though erosive forces like windblown sand are far more powerful near the bottom it is not in significantly worse shape than higher reaches.  It is quite obvious that the stones had to be and WERE in actuality slid down the cladded sides.  

.........except where they didn't do that. You just refuse to believe your own eyes huh?

So, the lurkers can laugh at you some more

So folks Cladking has stated his imperial opinion all pyramids lost their outer cladding from the top down

EXCEPT for:

G2

1280px-Khafre's_Pyramid343.jpg

YUVDYOe.jpg

Here is a close up G2 you can see that a lot of cladding is gone; removed or fallen away and yet the other stones are still in place.

and the Bent pyramid.

1280px-Snefru's_Bent_Pyramid_in_Dahshur.

YU7eJNj.png

Cladking note the removal of the lower cladding and guess what the cladding in the middle is still there - a miracle I am sure. Saint Samuel of the stones.

The next image shows a close up, the pillar like stones are modern reinforcement but in the past the upper cladding stone stayed in place.

G3 retained its granite lower courses but it isn't known if that pyramid was finished.

So we can say, that the G1 may have had its cladding removed by 'up or down', we cannot tell. G2 and the Bent are clear indications your 'method' was not used in all cases or - ever. G2 kept it top cladding and the Bent lost it top and bottom cladding falsifying your claim.

 

 

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

Not that I've taken him off ignore, but I can see that somehow the idea that there was no designed "crease" at the apothem of each triangular side of G1 has somehow offended Cladking's sensibilities.

I don't see what this could have to do with geysers.

However, maybe reading the paper I linked could help.

This is pretty definitive evidence that this was not a design feature:

image.png.523cc8beed798f360beacb0b03d52c3b.png

Harte

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Harte said:

 

 

image.png.523cc8beed798f360beacb0b03d52c3b.png

 

 

This is exactly what you'd expect to see for an eight sided pyramid if you intentionally removed most of the evidence by publishing the data from a colored picture into black and white.  

It is obvious obfuscation because the picture above this one in the report was not mutilated in this way and clearly shows an 8 sided structure.  If you look closely at the bottom you'll see the sides are no bifurcated meaning it's actually a twelve sided structure exactly as I've been saying for 16 years.    

 

 

 

Edited by cladking
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So we can say, that the G1 may have had its cladding removed by 'up or down', we cannot tell. 

Why don't you describe in detail how one cladding stone can be installed under another or one cladding stone can be removed from under another?  

The idea that you can install even one cladding stone another another is absurd whether an Egyptyologist says it or not.  It equally absurd to believe that you can remove 100,000 cladding stones starting at the bottom.  If you could (and you can not) all you'd have to show for it is about mostly broken and damaged stones and a pyramid that is destroyed at the bottom.  

I don't know how so many old wives tales got started but almost everything believed about the construction and damage to the pyramids are illogical, non sequitur, and unevidenced.  

You are making assertions that are illogical and unevidenced just like your assertion that the vertical stones at the top of G2 are modern.  

Why didn't Egyptologists even see the triangles at the bottoms?  

 

Now you'll change the subject, ignore the question, and insult me.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

Why don't you describe in detail how one cladding stone can be installed under another or one cladding stone can be removed from under another? 

Why would I waste my time doing that? You can see that stones were removed from below cladding that is still in place or do you plan to act like you cannot see that? lol

Quote

 It equally absurd to believe that you can remove 100,000 cladding stones starting at the bottom.  If you could (and you can not) all you'd have to show for it is about mostly broken and damaged stones and a pyramid that is destroyed at the bottom.  

You think that but then you don't really know the subject now do you?

a1NtUhP.png

Idealized version of the cladding stones: they overlap so that even if you pry one out the top ones will stay in place, held by the weight of the ones on top - not as securely but as the real world evidence shows  - this in fact worked.

You been shown images of cladding stones removed from below existing cladding and it staying in place. I don't know how to explain it to you if you refuse to see it.

http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/004_egypt/day_46_pyramid/037_top_of_khafre.jpg

Pyramid-of-Khafre-300x225.jpg

There is all the evidence you need cladding stones removed from below a pyramids top. Those not removed remained in place for many centuruies

5731.jpg.webp?v=1624281303

Same with this one cladding stones removed and the upper ones remain....

Quote

You are making assertions that are illogical and unevidenced just like your assertion that the vertical stones at the top of G2 are modern .

  Okay tell me how they got there - is this your new assumption?

Quote

Now you'll change the subject, ignore the question, and insult me.  

No we stayed on subject and addressed the question - which I might add you already knew the answer to if you looked at the images previous given. Selective blindness isn't going to save you from being wrong.. Insulting you. Well, yes I believe I should, 'you are acting perfectly normally and in character Cladking'.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

 If you look closely at the bottom you'll see the sides are no bifurcated meaning it's actually a twelve sided structure exactly as I've been saying for 16 years.   

16 years, twelve sided? Really? Then show us the link with that quote dated to 16 years ago. That means you are claiming you did this in 2008 well before you really got started making stuff up big time. We look forward to you showing you made such a claim back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hanslune said:

[snip]

Good grief. 

Quote

G3 retained its granite lower courses but it isn't known if that pyramid was finished.

"Isn't known" to whom exactly? From 2016 repeated again in 2019:

Quoting myself:

Quote

According to Diodorus 57BC:
Quote

The base length of each side he made three plethora (3 plethra = 105.54m), and for fifteen courses he built the walls of black stone like that found at Thebes, but the rest of it he filled out with stones like that found in the other pyramids. In size this structure falls behind those mentioned above, but far surpasses them in the skill displayed in its execution and the great cost of the stone; and on the north side of the pyramid is an inscription stating that its builder was Mycerinus.

If Diodorus is correct, which I do not doubt it, at least in his day the granite was 15 courses high which would have taken it it up to the beginning of the 12th century gash made by Bin Yusuf which I think is obviously no coincidence that this is exactly where they started:
http://www.nefershapiland.de/images/MenkaurePyramideEinganga.jpg


And:

Quote

Which I'm sure you will be doubly happy to read the commentary by Petrie, the father or archaeology and to this day still one of the leading authorities on the pyramids of Giza who wrote in 1883 regarding Diodorus:
 
Quote

Diodorus Siculus states the distance of the Pyramids from the Nile with great accuracy The base of the Great Pyramid he gives as 7 plethra, or 700 Greek feet, as against 747 such feet in reality; hence he is accurate to less than half a plethron. The height, he says, is more than 6 plethra; the arris height is actually just over 7 plethra, when complete. He mentions the fine preservation of the stone, and that the original jointing was uninjured by time, showing that the fine joints attracted his attention. The Second Pyramid he only roughly describes as a stadium wide; but this is not far wrong, as it is 7/6 stadia. The Third Pyramid he underrates as 300 feet long, whereas it is 340 Greek feet; if however, he originally wrote 3 plethra, he would be correct to less than half a plethron, as he is in the Great Pyramid size. It is noticeable that he slightly underrates all the Pyramids, his statements being respectively .94, .87, and .88 of the truth. He states that the sides up to the 15th course were of black stone; actually it seems probable that the dark red granite ended at the 16th course : and he says that the upper part was cased with the same stone as the other Pyramids, which is plainly true to anyone who sees the angular fragments lying thickly around it. Though Vyse was disappointed at not finding the name of Menkaura inscribed over the doorway, yet Diodorus only says that it was on the N. side of the Pyramid; hence it was probably on the fine limestone above the granite.
The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh
Quote

So we can say, that the G1 may have had its cladding removed by 'up or down', we cannot tell. G2 and the Bent are clear indications your 'method' was not used in all cases or - ever. G2 kept it top cladding and the Bent lost it top and bottom cladding falsifying your claim.

Regardless of Cladking's nonsense it is common sense that if one's goal was to remove a pyramid of its casing stones the safest and easiest from the top down. In the case of the BP, which curiously you do not picture a close up of, to remove them reasonably intact, not to mention most easily and safelythis can only be done from the top or corners. The BP's casing stones are not stacked on the core blocks below, but rather make up the outer mantle of the pyramid itself and are long and narrow set at an incline that are shaved flat to be "casing" in situ:

10071440_20180329115144.jpg

Much.jpg

The blocks seen below the "casing stones" in the picture above are not core blocks but rather the outer mantle of casing stones. Because of the stability of this design you can hack them out like a quarry while still maintaining structural integrity above, but you can only take so much which is what is seen around all four sides. And if one looks at it from a better angle we can see in fact the BP casing stones were largely removed from the top down and corners exactly as we would expect it to be: 

The-Bent-Pyramid-has-much-of-its-outer-c

At best, as some suggest, the base was trimmed out, then the corners to the top, then the rest was removed from the top down. I do not believe this was the case and were not part of the same process and is not what is seen on other pyramids regardless. 

Like the Red Pyramid which it too has casing stones yet only areas of the lower courses remain contradicting the best case scenario as outlined above for the BP:

76845a9f3c6d5c1e6010dbd5957f8b8f.jpg

redcasing.jpg

r3727.jpg

Different from the BP in that instead of using long flat blocks that made up the outer mantle layer, they used a new method, the standard to follow, employing shorter blocks set horizontally that instead rested on the top of each course of core blocks. Unlike the BP's design, to take from the bottom would be needlessly treacherous so it is no wonder the RP and all those that follow (with the exception of G2 which I'll get to) have the same missing casing stone above the base. 

This leaves us with G2 and the question of why is this the only one that didn't lose it casing stones from the top down. 

1280px-Khafre's_Pyramid343.jpg 

See HERE.

And HERE.

As we can see the casing stones at the top are in line with the bottom 2/3 of the pyramid leaving an an inset in the area (the blue line area in the 2nd HERE link) directly below the casing stones. This area has clearly been "prepped" for casing stones, yet there is no evidence if only to the contrary this was the case for the remaining 2/3 below it. Lehner says of the "bands" of G2:

Quote

Apart from the bottom course of outer casing in granite, the pyramid was cloaked in Turah limestone. Only the upper quarter of the casing remains-apparently a reflection of the robbers' practice of stripping first the corners and base then working upwards [which we can see is not actually the case and is reffering to the BP]. Just beneath the lowest surviving course of casing stones, a band of regular stepped core stone is visible. The rest of the surface down the face-the greater part of the pyramid-consists of very rough, irregular loose stones.

What is this lose lower band? Is it packing between core and casing, exposed when the casing was torn away? That seems likely until, climbing the corners of the pyramid, one sees that this irregular masonry seems to continue for some depth into the pyramid body. The discontinuity might indicate different building styles, perhaps even a hiatus and then resumption of building. Alternatively the core masonry may have been laid in a more regular fashion towards the top in order to allow the builders greater control.

He continues to say (p222) that the core blocks of this upper third become "gradually finer" until it "almost matches that of the Turah limestone casing", meaning the lower you go the less finished they are. First of all, only the bottom course(s)  is considered (assumed) to have been cased in granite. Secondly, the lower 3/4 of the pyramid is completely different than the upper 1/3 being filled with rough irregular loose stones completely covered in some kind of detritus yet the upper band directly above it comparatively clean as a whistle:

DK2yM2EXkAAsQk4.jpg

Why doesn't G1 or G3 have this level of detritus and what is it?

To me this is another mystery hiding in plain sight. We take for granted G2 was completely cased, but was it? And if so we are left with Lehner's comment: "The discontinuity [of the top 1/3 and the bottom 2/3]  might indicate different building styles, perhaps even a hiatus and then resumption of building." Why different building styles within the reign of one pharaoh during the construction of his pyramid? Why is the lower 2/3, the bulk of the pyramid, roughly finished and poorly prepped to receive casing stones, if it could, completely covered in detritus? Though it is hard to reconcile the upper 1/3 casing being installed from the top down and the pyramid prepped as they went, where else could the detritus come from, absent on every other great pyramid, if not from the prepping and shaving of the top 1/3 directly above it which would mean at that point there was no casing on the lower 2/3? Understand that it's not that the bottom 2/3 just has detritus all over it where as the upper 1/3 does not, it that the bottom 2/3 is inferiorly made to the upper 1/3. How long of a "hiatus"?

We can see how rough and irregular the lower 3/4 becomes right where the two bands meet which we can also see how far out the lower 3/4 extends from the prepped upper 1/3. For the bottom 3/4 to have casing stones in line with those above it it would need to be prepped and reduced to align with it, like the prepped band directly below the remaining casing stones, but it is not. All told, while it is hard to make sense of, at the very least the evidence clearly shows that there is a notable disconnect on multiple levels between the bottom 2/3 up the upper 1/3. I don't claim to have the answers, but we need to know what the questions are first which there is definitely something amiss here with G2. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

16 years, twelve sided? Really? Then show us the link with that quote dated to 16 years ago. That means you are claiming you did this in 2008 well before you really got started making stuff up big time. We look forward to you showing you made such a claim back then.

Of course you can't remember ever seeing this;

[img]http://www.catchpenny.org/images/concave1.gif[/img]

or this;

[img]http://www.catchpenny.org/images/ikonos.gif[/img]

From here;

http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html

 

You'll doubt your own eyes before you can see I am right.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

  Okay tell me how they got there - is this your new assumption?

I don't know how they got there.

This is the difference between us; I wait for evidence to make educated guesses and you just start with whatever fits your existing beliefs.  

In this case it helps me to not know because my theory predicts these should be here so I've searched for confirmation they are modern repairs or are ancient for years.  Egyptologists make numerous changes and damages but they are all very poorly recorded.  Most people don't care because they already have all the answers.  I'm perfectly happy not knowing something but I do know nobody ever pried 75,000 casing stones out of a solid wall of the pyramid.  This is just common sense that is sorely lacking today.  

 

  • Confused 1
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.