yet as I said before there NO hieroglyphics in the Giza pyramids and more importantly NO cartouches either , which is very , very significant it is off topic but since we went there it is important to discuss and understand
Hieroglyphs were discovered within one of the secret chambers in the pyramid of Khufu. They seem to be an engineering note, denoting the length of the chamber in cubits.
Futher; an inscription on a stela , which is in the Cairo Museum , the Great Pyramid was already standing when Khufu arrived . It belonged to the Goddess Isis , not to Khufu
notice that none of the sites mention the stela that states that the pyramids were there before Kufu , none
I notice the links to the instigators didn't properly encode. Here's the first guy who tested samples: http://forum.terrana-ecovillage.ro/books/geo/Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt.pdf Here's the more recent story that led to this thread 6 years ago: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/12/08/pyramids_arc.html I suppose the rationale for taking samples in the first place was to see if the material might be cement. But more than likely they took samples for the reason you mention, to find some other explanation than hauling them up the steps. Why pour cement in blocks at all? I suppose without aggregate and rebar they don't have a very strong material. This might be an alternative to expansion joints. But it seems like it would have been so much simpler to pour slabs. The original author says the blocks were poured in place. This seems odd, since there aren't gaps between them to account for forms. "Not a hair could pass between them" it was written. All of this - quarrying and crushing stone, transporting it, drawing water, mixing it, sending it up the steps via bucket brigade, just to overcome the difficulty of using levers and wheels, etc., doesn't even make sense. The author already admits that some of the blocks are definitely dragged from the quarry whole. So they had the machines anyway. There are two motivations I can think of for pouring blocks. One is that they dry faster than a slab. The author says he made one in 10 days. So they could pour them with gaps - like battlements - let them dry and return in 10 days and fill in between, although the second set wouldn't have as much air to dry. Maybe they solved that by pouring the center block first then spiraling around it, one revolution every ten days per level. The second motivation might be to create expansion joints, although it's hard to imagine they couldn't have stumbled on to this by pouring slabs and experimenting. Unless, of course, that's how they came up with the standard block size. Finally, it's hard to believe they didn't use this unslaked cement to build their infrastructure. It would be much softer than concrete but it would at least seem to be feasible for roads and sidewalks which could be repaired as they wore down, and foundations, which wouldn't necessarily undergo much load or wear and tear. It just seems like there would be ruins of cities and fortresses left behind.
I've thought of another objection to the 'poured pyramid' hypothesis. As everyone who has ever pored concrete, or seen it poured, or wandered by afterwards will have observed, there are little splashes of concrete on the ground around the work site. Granted it's been ages since the last pyramid was allegedly poured, but wouldn't there be one little plash somewhere in or around all that massive massiveness and mass that are the pyramids?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tut tut. Another case of not really having read the post alluded to. BTW, 'splatter' may have been a better word than 'splash/plash'. I didn't think of it yesterday. My point is 'liquid construction' leaves telltale liquid leavings, splatters. splashes, dribbles. Given the scale of the pyramids, can all such sign have been obliterated, even after all this time? Another point: they say the two inescapable rules of cement are that it is grey and it will crack. Are many of the pyramids' blocks cracked? And if not, and it is indeed poured concrete, was their recipe for concrete/cement superior to ours in modern times? I am not saying it could not be, but it would be quite an accomplishment - a regular lost secret of the Egyptians even.
I don't know but here is a thought. After reading most all of this. Maybe the "concrete" was to fix things. By the real builders. If not Epictetus, is right there would've been "splashes". Maybe all the sand wore them away. But maybe the blocks were poured because they are lighter. Then shaped by hand. There for there is no form markings. An possibly they didn't use wood to make the form. They could have used rocks or lined a hole, with something. The water is no issue. Really the water was need by people. People lived where they worked. Wells, rain water, transported water. But here is something. We will never truly know any thing for certain. How they truly did anything. Even with the hyrogliphs. But way off target. Like Egyptians how the heck did Mayans do it? An one more thing many mummy's were lost because they were used as "logs" in steam engines. An plain burned.
Two major related fallacies prevent the unlocking of the pyramids mystery. 1. We are the most intelligent humans to date. 2. What we comprehend and measure of matter is all there is to it. Some of the methods of deduction by a few of you, are suitable to investigate and find out the answer. Here are some clues; The structure of some stones has been 'mixed' or aligned to a specific consistancy. The stones are set very close, with no spaces, despite any irregularities. The quarries show cut marks. Many stones will have signs of a single (or less common multiple) indentation originally about 5 to 8 inches in diameter, and usually an inch deep, rarely up to 10 inches deep (the holes can penetrate the stone entirely with the same diameter or the stone can have little or no marking). Many stones will have one side which is slightly more irregular or rougher than the other side. Stones in other ruins worldwide show similar markings and signs. Use your observation skills. Clues in the negative; No cementing, no pouring, no pushing, no loading, no ropes, no tackles, no ramps, no pulleys, no levers, no rollers, no wheels, no aliens, no canoes, no barges, no donkeys, no camels, no slaves whatsoever, no flintstones, no tooth picks, no thousands of years in building, no burials - originally, not made for tourists, not old grain or treasure stores - originally, no foretelling of the future, no magnets, no axes, no hammers, no mud slidding, no electro magnetism, no heat, no ice or snow, no sand, no magic, no muscles, no superman, no machinery, no natural disaster, no river usage, no Divine assistance, no occult, no atomic explosions, any more guesses?
