The Giza Pyramids

[marduk52]

According to Egyptologist's the Great Pyramid at Giza was created in just 23 year's. Personally, I find this idea/theory a bit ridiculous.

Here's why:

Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims

by Will Hart

Egyptologists are displaying irrational and unscientific fixations by stubbornly clinging to ideas that have already been discredited. Mr. Lerhner and Mr. Hawass use every public forum to repeat their unproven speculations about how the ancient (Egyptian) builders quarried, transported, lifted, dressed and precisely positioned blocks of stone weighing from 50 to 200 tons.

The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.

They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.

The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.

Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.

Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.

The debate has raged on for decades without resolution. But there is a simple, definitive way to end the controversy once and for all.

I propose that an independent panel of scientists and civil engineers devise a straightforward test to see if blocks of stone weighing 50 to 200 tons can be manipulated, moved and lifted into place using the primitive methods that Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.

Using smaller stones proves nothing, you have to successfully manipulate the largest blocks not the smallest.

This challenge is proposed in the true spirit of scientific inquiry and public disclosure. There is no reason to accord a free lunch to any group of social scientists and no reason to accept unsubstantiated (historical) theories that are based on little more than idle speculation and wishful thinking. There is also no good reason to allow a protracted controversy to reign when the means of disposing of it are readily available.

Human history is a universal reality that belongs to all people and the pursuit of its underlying truth is more important than catering to the interests of any individual(s) or group(s).

© 2002 by Will Hart

Email: Cwillwrite1@hotmail.com

[sirfiroth]

According to Egyptologist's the Great Pyramid at Giza was created in just 23 year's. Personally, I find this idea/theory a bit ridiculous.

Here's why:

Egyptologists: It is Time to Prove Your Claims

by Will Hart

Egyptologists are displaying irrational and unscientific fixations by stubbornly clinging to ideas that have already been discredited. Mr. Lerhner and Mr. Hawass use every public forum to repeat their unproven speculations about how the ancient (Egyptian) builders quarried, transported, lifted, dressed and precisely positioned blocks of stone weighing from 50 to 200 tons.

The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.

They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.

The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.

Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.

Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.

The debate has raged on for decades without resolution. But there is a simple, definitive way to end the controversy once and for all.

I propose that an independent panel of scientists and civil engineers devise a straightforward test to see if blocks of stone weighing 50 to 200 tons can be manipulated, moved and lifted into place using the primitive methods that Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.

Using smaller stones proves nothing, you have to successfully manipulate the largest blocks not the smallest.

This challenge is proposed in the true spirit of scientific inquiry and public disclosure. There is no reason to accord a free lunch to any group of social scientists and no reason to accept unsubstantiated (historical) theories that are based on little more than idle speculation and wishful thinking. There is also no good reason to allow a protracted controversy to reign when the means of disposing of it are readily available.

Human history is a universal reality that belongs to all people and the pursuit of its underlying truth is more important than catering to the interests of any individual(s) or group(s).

© 2002 by Will Hart

Email: Cwillwrite1@hotmail.com

Hey if we can get an answer to that I contribute and make it two free lunches!

[cladking]

I've never seen the problem as there being excessive difficulty in quarrying,

placing or moving the stone over flat surfaces. Certainly all of these activities

would present a huge task to ancients but given sufficient manpower and time

they would seem to be doable.

My problem with the traditional explanations is the seeming impossibility of

bringing sufficient manpower to bear in lifting the stones into a pile. This would

be a huge task for each and every stone using primitive technology and it could

not be overcome by simply throwing more men at the job because there would

not be room to work.

Why are the earliest reports that they used great machines and that stones

were moved toward the pyramids a bowshot (300') at a time simply ignored?

[marduk52]

Hey if we can get an answer to that I contribute and make it two free lunches!

LOL I'm guessing sum of the egyptologists are playing dumb on the matter so they wont lose there job.

[marduk52]

I've never seen the problem as there being excessive difficulty in quarrying,

placing or moving the stone over flat surfaces. Certainly all of these activities

would present a huge task to ancients but given sufficient manpower and time

they would seem to be doable.

My problem with the traditional explanations is the seeming impossibility of

bringing sufficient manpower to bear in lifting the stones into a pile. This would

be a huge task for each and every stone using primitive technology and it could

not be overcome by simply throwing more men at the job because there would

not be room to work.

Why are the earliest reports that they used great machines and that stones

were moved toward the pyramids a bowshot (300') at a time simply ignored?

Where did you here they used machines? For the record, the egyptologists claim they used nothing but primitive tool's and methods. In fact, they didn't even have the ol horse and cart at the time the egyptologist's claim it--the great pyramid--was built.

It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.

[cladking]

Where did you here they used machines? For the record, the egyptologists claim they used nothing but primitive tool's and methods. In fact, they didn't even have the ol horse and cart at the time the egyptologist's claim it--the great pyramid--was built.

It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.

Manetho wrote that stones moved to the pyramid 300' at a time per Vyse.

Herototus was told that the ancients used "great machines" and "conducted a canal thither".

[sirfiroth]

It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.

That is a fact the Pyramids were there long before Khufu was born.

[Dan Dare]

Where did you here they used machines? For the record, the egyptologists claim they used nothing but primitive tool's and methods. In fact, they didn't even have the ol horse and cart at the time the egyptologist's claim it--the great pyramid--was built.

It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.

For the record egyptologists must be as thick as two short planks in claiming they used nothing but primative tools (let's see one of these tools Mr Egiptologist) for there must have been millions.

This is interesting, http://www.materials.drexel.edu/Pyramids/ this theory looks good in parts, cement may be the answer ?

[isis-999]

You think it was so hard for them to build this in 23 years..But you have not figured in one very important thing....How many people did they have working on it....They where built cause of a very simple thing.. It's called man power and if you have enough of it you can move mountain's.......

[drakonwick]

The most common theory for moving large blocks is to slide logs under the large stones to make mobility easier. The block would have been attached to large ropes with people pushing the block forward. At the same time several men would remove the last log uncovered by the stone. The end log that was removed would then be transported to the front where it would complete the cycle under the stone and the endless cycle would be repeated.

Moving the block was one thing but placing it into position was another. This idea has also left scientist baffled. The most common theory for placement of each stone is said to have a ramp that went around the pyramid’s sides. Some have concluded that the ramp only touched one side of the pyramid. This might have been true, but the ramp might have had more material then the pyramid did and this would have made placement of each block difficult.

Herodotus was a Greek historian who traveled to Egypt around 450 B.C. and wrote that the Egyptians had some sort of gear that was used in lifting these large blocks. Although this might sound extraordinary, scientists have found no proof of any such lifting devices.

It’s estimated that the Great Pyramid took almost twenty years to complete due to its size and the type of stone used in creating the structure. Each stone weighed about two to five tons and came from Aswan and Tura. Not only was the stone imported but also stonemasons would have worked all year long cutting and shaping each block. All these complicated tasks made the pyramid difficult to construct but as we know today, the end results are amazing.

You have to really ask yourself with alot of man power even in the thousands, HOW?

I mean the fact that each stone weighing in at 2 to 5 tons had to be taken from a location and masoned which took a year or two and then moved and fixed into place.

Even if you had 20,000 men with rudimentary tools 20 years is an astounding feat.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Dragonwick

[isis-999]

But they had more then 20 thousand men working, You have to understand they where building a house for their living God.....And greater thing's have been done in the name of a God....It's not really that hard when you have a whole country working for a single God....

[drakonwick]

But they had more then 20 thousand men working, You have to understand they where building a house for their living God.....And greater thing's have been done in the name of a God....It's not really that hard when you have a whole country working for a single God....

Yeah, I suppose any great feat in building such a thing can be accomplished in large numbers and team work!

But you also have to take into concideration of the death toll, and injuries on a daily bases that had to be in the hundreds alone!

Working from sunrise to sunset, and probably malnutritioned! That had to be a bit like torture to alot of them.

But in any case we may never find the truth in how they built the pyrimids, all we can do is speculate.

[sirfiroth]

But they had more then 20 thousand men working, You have to understand they where building a house for their living God.....And greater thing's have been done in the name of a God....It's not really that hard when you have a whole country working for a single God....

In all of the Pyramids in Egypt there has not been one Mummy entombed within the so-called burial chambers of these structures. The majority of entombments have taken place away from the Pyramids in the Valley of the Kings. Does it seem logical the Great Pyramid, such a grand edifice, was created as a final resting place to satisfy someone’s colossal ego? At the time it was first discovered the mankind was still very superstitious and to understand the mentality of the time when imagination and knowledge were not as advanced as it is today. Imaginations of the times were incapable of advanced thinking such as demonstrated by Piazzi Smyth who was ridiculed for his radical theories regarding the time aspects of the Pyramid. The idea the Great Pyramid having a correlation to time was laughable to mainstream Archeologist of the time so by arbitration they contrived the idea of a burial chamber. Piazza Smyth’s idea of the Great Pyramid’s correlation to time was correct, but the contexts of his findings were erroneous.

Isn’t it time we dropped the absurd age-old concept of the Great Pyramid as a 4,500-year-old mausoleum. The mausoleum nonsense is a hold over idea from more superstitious times grasped and held on to by Archeology for far too long. How egotistical does one man have to be to build such and edifice as a monument to himself? Someday you will come to realize as I did the idea of a burial chamber is more a concept of superstitious western man.

[cladking]

Everyone is always constrained by the laws of nature and we will never

understand these laws. As we learn more we are able to create increasing-

ly complex machines, but we and our machines remain always bound by these

laws whether we know them or not. This applies to ancients no matter how

fanatic they may or may not have been. They could not build these by mere

wishing. They could not build them without a means to deliver stones at a very

high rate to a very high altitude. How they did it is unknown but we do know

that this feat was not accomplished by mere brute force because mindless brute

force can not be brought to bear in a small area.

Many people and mainstream egyptology believe that by understanding the

people that you can understand the pyramids, but these connections seem

highly tenuous to those of us analysing the situation on the evidence alone.

This isn't to say that mainstream egyptology is wrong just that most of what

they claim flies in the face of all the known facts except those relating to the

builders themselves.

We are left with a situation where there is no first hand information and even

third hand is quite scarce. The known tools are few. Some of the physical in-

formation is suspect. But most importantly nothing fits.

The way to find a fit is scientific investigation but instead only those who agree

with the mainstream view are allowed on site.

[Harte]

It's also noteworthy that Khufu himself wrote in a stela located at the Giza complex that the great pyramid was there before his reign.

No, he didn't.

Could anyone else here please start including links to the information they claim? I'm not gonna verify this for you.

Khufu himself never wrote any such thing in any stela.

It’s estimated that the Great Pyramid took almost twenty years to complete due to its size and the type of stone used in creating the structure. Each stone weighed about two to five tons and came from Aswan and Tura. Not only was the stone imported but also stonemasons would have worked all year long cutting and shaping each block. All these complicated tasks made the pyramid difficult to construct but as we know today, the end results are amazing.

Well, at least you got the average size right. BTW, that 2.5 tons is about 7 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet. Not exactly monolithic.

The stones came from the Giza Plateau itself - the limestone ones, that is, which is the vast majority. Quarrying occured a few hundreds of yards away from the Great Pyramid.

Harte

[marduk52]

No, he didn't.

Could anyone else here please start including links to the information they claim? I'm not gonna verify this for you.

Khufu himself never wrote any such thing in any stela.

If you do more objective research you will find that he in fact did. There is also a reference to this in this webpage:

http://tinyurl.com/2sz2pn

[sirfiroth]

No, he didn't.

Could anyone else here please start including links to the information they claim? I'm not gonna verify this for you.

Khufu himself never wrote any such thing in any stela.

Well, at least you got the average size right. BTW, that 2.5 tons is about 7 feet by 3 feet by 3 feet. Not exactly monolithic.

The stones came from the Giza Plateau itself - the limestone ones, that is, which is the vast majority. Quarrying occured a few hundreds of yards away from the Great Pyramid.

Harte

What about the 50-70 ton stones set 280 feet from grade? Quarried some 30 miles away and transported to the site. The Kings Chamber is Granite and not of local origin.

From Wikipedia.

In contrast, the “Inventory Stela” of the 26th dynasty (664-525 BC), found by Auguste Mariette on the Giza plateau in 1857, describes how Khufu (the father of Khafra, the alleged builder) discovered the damaged monument buried in sand, and attempted to excavate and repair the dilapidated Sphinx. Because of the late dynasty origin of the document and reference to Khufu as the builder and not the accepted Khafra, this particular section of Inventory Stela is often dismissed by Egyptologists as late dynasty historical revisionism.[5]

What about the 50-70 ton stones set 280 feet from grade? Quarried some 30 miles away and transported to the site.

The site verification is not for us! The site verification is for you to confirm what we already know.

[TheManWithoutQualities]

Hello Folks,

sorry for my english...

there is a new theory on how the pyramids were erected: A ramp within the pyramid was constantly build (so forming an inclined tunnel) while the pyramid gained height, it was located alongside the surfaces and winding up like a spiral. An outside ramp winding up would have caused trouble to get a smooth, symmetrical pyramid form in the end, so to speak to determine the right position of the edges. The volume of a single side ramp would have been larger than the volume of the pyramid itself, and thus uneconomical.

How to Build a Pyramid Volume 60 Number 3, May/June 2007

by Bob Brier

Hidden ramps may solve the mystery of the Great Pyramid's construction.

Of the seven wonders of the ancient world, only the Great Pyramid of Giza remains. An estimated 2 million stone blocks weighing an average of 2.5 tons went into its construction. When completed, the 481-foot-tall pyramid was the world's tallest structure, a record it held for more than 3,800 years, when England's Lincoln Cathedral surpassed it by a mere 44 feet.

We know who built the Great Pyramid: the pharaoh Khufu, who ruled Egypt about 2547-2524 B.C. And we know who supervised its construction: Khufu's brother, Hemienu. The pharaoh's right-hand man, Hemienu was "overseer of all construction projects of the king" and his tomb is one of the largest in a cemetery adjacent to the pyramid.

What we don't know is exactly how it was built, a question that has been debated for millennia. The earliest recorded theory was put forward by the Greek historian Herodotus, who visited Egypt around 450 B.C., when the pyramid was already 2,000 years old. He mentions "machines" used to raise the blocks and this is usually taken to mean cranes. Three hundred years later, Diodorus of Sicily wrote, "The construction was effected by mounds" (ramps). Today we have the "space alien" theory--those primitive Egyptians never could have built such a fabulous structure by themselves; extraterrestrials must have helped them.

Modern scholars have favored these two original theories, but deep in their hearts, they know that neither one is correct. A radical new one, however, may provide the solution. If correct, it would demonstrate a level of planning by Egyptian architects and engineers far greater than anything ever imagined before. ...

Source: http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html

[dmurdock36]

You think it was so hard for them to build this in 23 years..But you have not figured in one very important thing....How many people did they have working on it....They where built cause of a very simple thing.. It's called man power and if you have enough of it you can move mountain's.......

then why cant we replicate it?

[Harte]

What about the 50-70 ton stones set 280 feet from grade? Quarried some 30 miles away and transported to the site. The Kings Chamber is Granite and not of local origin.

Good point. However, an earlier post stated that the stones that made up the pyramid were not quarried locally. I'm just saying that the vast, vast majority of them were quarried almost right next to the pyramid complex.

The granite you refer to is, as I recall, from Aswan. Brought by river boat.

From Wikipedia.

In contrast, the “Inventory Stela†of the 26th dynasty (664-525 BC), found by Auguste Mariette on the Giza plateau in 1857, describes how Khufu (the father of Khafra, the alleged builder) discovered the damaged monument buried in sand, and attempted to excavate and repair the dilapidated Sphinx. Because of the late dynasty origin of the document and reference to Khufu as the builder and not the accepted Khafra, this particular section of Inventory Stela is often dismissed by Egyptologists as late dynasty historical revisionism.[5]

I assume you include this because of my insistence that Khufu never wrote on a stela that the pyramids were there before he was?

If that is the case, note that Khufu in this stela is talking about the Sphinx and not the pyramid, which was the subject I was commenting on.

If that is not the case, then I must assume you had a reason to include this quote from wiki, but I cannot fathom what that purpose might be.

The site verification is not for us! The site verification is for you to confirm what we already know.

Not clear on this either. Do you mean that it is not up to the people that are making ignorant claims to provide some evidence for what they are saying, but that it is up to the people that know better to provide evidence to the contrary?

Well, no thanks. I think I'll just adopt your attitude:

I have proof that you are completely wrong in every, single tiny thing you say about the Ancient world. In fact, anything you say in the future will be wrong as well. Not only are you wrong, you are attempting to mislead people here (and elsewhere) in a nefarious plot to take money from the uneducated and keep it for your greedy self. I've seen plenty of evidence that proves what I say about you to be true.

But, as you say, "The site verification is for you to confirm what (I) already know!!!"

Harte

Edited May 22, 2007 by Harte

[cladking]

Hello Folks,

sorry for my english...

there is a new theory on how the pyramids were erected: A ramp within the pyramid was constantly build (so forming an inclined tunnel) while the pyramid gained height, it was located alongside the surfaces and winding up like a spiral. An outside ramp winding up would have caused trouble to get a smooth, symmetrical pyramid form in the end, so to speak to determine the right position of the edges. The volume of a single side ramp would have been larger than the volume of the pyramid itself, and thus uneconomical.

How to Build a Pyramid Volume 60 Number 3, May/June 2007

by Bob Brier

Your English is good.

My problem with any sort of internal ramp is that no matter how they

are constructed you end up with a huge empty volume to fill when they

are no longer needed. No matter how they are designed you either have

to fill in on the top first which is like building a house starting with the roof

or you start filling in on th bottom and still have a large amount of stone to

lift up the side of the pyramid.

Also no matter where you put the ramps they still need to be about a mile

long and there would be a huge traffic jam on them trying to deliver stone

at a rate of about one every five minutes.

[sirfiroth]

Good point. However, an earlier post stated that the stones that made up the pyramid were not quarried locally. I'm just saying that the vast, vast majority of them were quarried almost right next to the pyramid complex.

The granite you refer to is, as I recall, from Aswan. Brought by river boat.

I assume you include this because of my insistence that Khufu never wrote on a stela that the pyramids were there before he was?

If that is the case, note that Khufu in this stela is talking about the Sphinx and not the pyramid, which was the subject I was commenting on.

If that is not the case, then I must assume you had a reason to include this quote from wiki, but I cannot fathom what that purpose might be.

Not clear on this either. Do you mean that it is not up to the people that are making ignorant claims to provide some evidence for what they are saying, but that it is up to the people that know better to provide evidence to the contrary?

Well, no thanks. I think I'll just adopt [your attitude:

I have proof that you are completely wrong in every, single tiny thing you say about the Ancient world. In fact, anything you say in the future will be wrong as well. Not only are you wrong, you are attempting to mislead people here (and elsewhere) in a nefarious plot to take money from the uneducated and keep it for your greedy self. I've seen plenty of evidence that proves what I say about you to be true.

But, as you say, "The site verification is for you to confirm what (I) already know!!!"

Harte

Share your proof because some of the best kown Archeologist and metrologist in the world say I am right.

Did you bother to check out the web sites I listed

Since you didn't get the message I will say it in Plain English, If you don't know what you are talking about keep your mouth shut, and quit acting like an moron.

[marduk52]

then why cant we replicate it?

Exactly!

Here's an excerpt from the article I posted which some here have obviously not contemplated:

The problem is that they have not proven that the primitive tools and methods that they assert the builders used are equal to the task. In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.

They couldn't even get past the first step successfully. And this was a one-third scale attempt! LOL

The same then happened with the NOVA team who also failed miserably.

[marduk52]

Share your proof because some of the best kown Archeologist and metrologist in the world say I am right.

Did you bother to check out the web sites I listed

Since you didn't get the message I will say it in Plain English, If you don't know what you are talking about keep your mouth shut, and quit acting like an moron.

There's also the little know--even to this day--incident in which Vyse and his cronies were busted as fraud's.

Here's some light on this matter:

Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors

Subject: Scratch Khufu

Date: 3 Aug 1993 04:29:43 GMT

Here's some info about the (not) building of the Pyramid by Khufu... taken

from Sitchin, "The Wars of Gods and Men", p. 136:

"The current theories regarding the pyramids' builders are anchored to an even

greater extent on the discovery of the name Khufu inscribed in hieroglyphics

within a long-sealed compartment within the Great Pyramid and thus apparently

establishing the identity of its builder. Unnoticed has gone the fact that the

discoverer of that inscription was the same Colonel Vyse and his assistants

(the year was 1837). [The preceding paragraph deals with the faking of a mummy

by Vyse] In 'The Stairway to Heaven' we have put together substantial evidence

to show that the inscription was a forgery, perpetrated by its "discoverers."

At the end of 1983, a reader of that book came forward to provide us with

family records showing that his great-grandfather, a master mason named

Humphries Brewer, who was engaged by Vyse to help use gunpowder to blast his

way inside the pyramid, was an *eyewitness to the forgery* and, having objected

to the deed, was expelled from the site and forced to leave Egypt altogether!

In 'The Stairway to Heaven' we have shown that Khufu could not have

been the builder of the Great Pyramid because he had already referred to it as

existing in his time in a stela he had erected near the pyramids; even the

Sphinx, supposedly erected by the next-after successor of Khufu, is mentioned

in that inscription."

[Harte]

Share your proof because some of the best kown Archeologist and metrologist in the world say I am right.

Not a single, solitary one of these says this.

Did you bother to check out the web sites I listed

I don't need to go read the various metric and English dimensions of the Great Pyramid. Why would I?

Since you didn't get the message I will say it in Plain English, If you don't know what you are talking about keep your mouth shut, and quit acting like an moron.

That is rich, considering I was admittedly acting like you.

There's also the little know--even to this day--incident in which Vyse and his cronies were busted as fraud's.

Here's some info about the (not) building of the Pyramid by Khufu... taken

from Sitchin, "The Wars of Gods and Men", p. 136:

"The current theories regarding the pyramids' builders are anchored to an even

greater extent on the discovery of the name Khufu inscribed in hieroglyphics

within a long-sealed compartment within the Great Pyramid and thus apparently

establishing the identity of its builder. Unnoticed has gone the fact that the

discoverer of that inscription was the same Colonel Vyse and his assistants

(the year was 1837). [The preceding paragraph deals with the faking of a mummy

by Vyse] In 'The Stairway to Heaven' we have put together substantial evidence

to show that the inscription was a forgery, perpetrated by its "discoverers."

At the end of 1983, a reader of that book came forward to provide us with

family records showing that his great-grandfather, a master mason named

Humphries Brewer, who was engaged by Vyse to help use gunpowder to blast his

way inside the pyramid, was an *eyewitness to the forgery* and, having objected

to the deed, was expelled from the site and forced to leave Egypt altogether!

Marduk52,

Sitchen is not a good source. He's a economics historian that started making up lies about ancient civilizations, claiming to be able to translate cuneiform and truthfully unable to even correctly translate the Hebrew he was taught at Temple before his Bar Mitzvah.

The "Vyse forgery" he dredged up here was long ago discovered not to be forged at all. The graffitti Vyse found was written using a form and grammar that, during Vyse's time, was unknown. It was immediately suspected to be forged at the time.

Decades later, new discoveries turned up showing that the grammar and structure of the hieroglyphic graffitti found by Vyse was not only legitimate, but that the particular style dated to approximately the period to which the construction of the Great Pyramid is attributed.

In 'The Stairway to Heaven' we have shown that Khufu could not have

been the builder of the Great Pyramid because he had already referred to it as

existing in his time in a stela he had erected near the pyramids; even the

Sphinx, supposedly erected by the next-after successor of Khufu, is mentioned

in that inscription."

It is still possible that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid. But the stela you refer to (the "Inventory" Stela,) which was wrtitten in the 26th Dynastic period and not by Khufu nor during his reign (the 4th Dynasty,) says the following:

from Jordan, Riddles of the Sphinx, p. 94:

Long live...the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life...He found the House of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, by the side of the hollow of Hwran [the Sphinx]...and he built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess and he built a pyramid for the King's daughter Henutsen beside this temple. The place of Hwran Horemkhet is on the south side of the House of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid.... He restored the statue, all covered in painting, of the Guardian of the Atmosphere, who guides the winds with his gaze. He replaced the back part of the nemes head-dress which was missing with gilded stone.... The figure of this god, cut in stone, is solid and will last to eternity, keeping its face always to the east.

If you reread Sitchen, you'll see that he's playing fast and loose with this stela, leaving out any part that might tend to contradict his moronic drivel. That is typical of how this person operates.

Harte

Edited May 23, 2007 by Harte