Atlantis Online
August 18, 2022, 03:02:42 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Satellite images 'show Atlantis'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3766863.stm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

the Giza Building Project

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the Giza Building Project  (Read 7769 times)
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #135 on: May 11, 2007, 10:20:41 am »

Barsoum states that one of the samples is from Lauer.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #136 on: May 11, 2007, 10:37:20 am »

And Lauer is an Egyptologist?

Please cite references.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #137 on: May 11, 2007, 10:40:35 am »

Hey Cat
Maybe your great guru Mr. Lehner had an ulterior motive when he used those helicopters to move the blocks.  He was just trying to prove that that's how the ancients did it as well.

Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #138 on: May 11, 2007, 10:42:05 am »

And Lauer is an Egyptologist?

Please cite references.
 I'm tired of citing them.  You never read them anyway.  Can't you read?  I said Barsoum.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #139 on: May 11, 2007, 10:57:46 am »

Cat
I will copy only a small piece of the work, as it is encrypted against copying.

Egyptologists agree that while the main bulk of pyramid core blocks were made from Giza limestone, the inner and outer casings
were made from a much finer grade limestone, presumed to be made from the Tura formation  found on the East side of the Nile.  Davidovits, however, compared natural limestone samples taken from six different Tura sites with an inner casing stone from the Ascending passageway of the Great Pyramid, the latter given to Davidovits by Egyptologist, J. P. Lauer and henceforth referred to as the Lauer sample.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #140 on: May 11, 2007, 07:19:38 pm »

I have been trying to find his background. Is this the one?

http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/lauer/photo1.JPEG

Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #141 on: May 11, 2007, 07:29:05 pm »

Are you seriously trying to convince us that that depicts a helicopter?

Perhaps the letter A depicts a war head?

Or the letter I depicts a menhir?

Wink
Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #142 on: May 11, 2007, 07:37:36 pm »

Since there seems to be some weird notion that the ancients could not move blocks of 2 tons without pulverizing them and carrying them in their handbags, here is some serious research:

Building with Stone – A Global Perspective

Malta

There is much to be learnt by studying the use of stone in the ancient world. Let us start with the Maltese Ggantija temples which were built between 3600 and 2500 BC.  They were made from local limestone which occurred in two varieties: hard coralline and softer globigerina. The former is more difficult to work but fissures naturally to yield blocks which are very durable and resistant to erosion. Globigerina, on the other hand, would have had to be quarried using antler picks and wooden wedges. The Maltese builders chose the hard coralline limestone for external features (for weather resistance) and Globigerina for internal features.

Stones weighing up to 20 tons were transported from quarries several kilometres away, probably using wooden sledges or cradles. Stone balls found discarded at several sites probably assisted manoeuvring blocks into position. Huge blocks of coralline limestone were carefully jointed in the outer walls, yet they appear crude by comparison with the globigerina façade. Larger blocks were moved into position using a combination of wooden levers and ropes. Many blocks have a notch in the middle of the longer side to take the tip of the lever to ensure it did not slip. Ropes could have been tied around the stones, or looped through the V-perforations found on some of the blocks. Interiors were furnished with carved slabs of softer globirerina limestone. In the absence of metal tools, these must have been finished using small flint blades.

Source: “Ggantija and the Maltese Temples” by Dr Chris Scarre, Deputy Director of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge.

Brittany
There are hundreds of monoliths in Brittany (France) but the largest is the Grand Menhir Brisé near Locmariaquer. It was erected to the vertical but was later toppled, which can be seen from the four sections into which it fractures and their disposition in relation to the hole in which the menhir stood. Evidence suggests that this “great broken standing stone” belongs to the earliest phase of the Brittany Neolithic around 4500 BC.

The most likely source of the stone, which would have stood 66 feet high and weighing an estimated 280 tonnes, was the outcrop in the Auray River 12 km (7.5 miles) away. Whilst part of the journey could be by water, considerable effort would have been required as this single stone was seven times as heavy and over twice as long as the largest stone at Stonehenge. Close inspection shows traces of intense pounding and hammering employed to smooth the surface.

The Grand Menhir is so large that, for many years, there was doubt as to whether it had been successfully raised to the vertical, but close examination of the breaks  between the fragments has led French Archaeologist Jean L’Helgouach to conclude that it was felled by human agency, and in two distinct stages. First, a ring of wedges was driven into the stone, eventually splitting off the top two thirds, which fell to the east and broke into three. The remaining stump was dragged from its socket and overturned towards the west.

Smaller sockets show that the Grand Menhir was last in a row of lesser menhirs, whose absence suggests that the sacred stones of one generation were violently overthrown to be incorporated into the burial monuments of their descendants. The passage graves of “La Table des Marchand” are nearby.

Source: “The Grand Menhir Brisé, Brittany” by Dr Chris Scarre, Deputy Director of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge.

Egyptian Obelisks

Obelisks are massive monoliths particularly erected in Egypt from the 12th Dynasty (ca. 1950 BC) although the largest date to the mid 18th Dynasty (ca 1504-1425 BC). They were usually erected in pairs. Obelisks were carved from very hard stones which were strong enough to be cut to the slender proportions of the finished object without cracking and to withstand transportation. Aswan granite was by far the most popular stone for obelisks and the preference for pink and red granites may reflect solar associations.

A particularly useful source of information is an unfinished obelisk probably dating to Thutmose III (1479-1425 BC) which would have stood 137 feet high and weighed around 1150 tons. Unfortunately it was cracked during quarrying and abandoned but preserves clear evidence of the methods used to carve it. Granite is a very hard stone and cannot be cut with the relatively soft metal tools available to the  AEs and so stone tools were used. Ball-shaped dolerite pounders were used to crush the quartz grains to powder which could then be brushed away. The outline of the obelisk was marked on the rock surface and the rock around it could be pounded out. A trench was cut just wide enough to allow a man to work in the gap, and deep enough to be able to undercut the obelisk. Around 150 men could have worked simultaneously in this trench. The obelisk was split from its base with levers and jacked up above the level of the surrounding stone using wooden struts. It was then manoeuvred on to a wooden sledge for transport. Assuming that a man could pull approximately a third of a tonne over level ground, 1000 men would have been needed to move each of Hatshepsut’s 320-tonne obelisks, and 3500 men to move that of Thutmose, had it been completed. A relief at the Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri shows a pair of obelisks being transported by barge to Karnak.

Obelisks were generally polished to a high shine using stone grinders and a fine quartz powder, and then the decoration was drawn on to the surface by a draftsman and carved by a skilled sculptor using stone tools.

Source: “Egyptian Obelisks” by Dr Kate Spence, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow in the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Cambridge.

The Colossi of Western Thebes

The colossus of Ramesses II (1290-1224 BC) in Western Thebes was nearly 62 feet tall and weighed around 1000 tons. Each Colossus of Memnon (representing Amenhotep III 1391-1353 BC) was carved from a single block of yellow quartzite, chosen for solar associations. They are now around 51 feet tall but have lost their tall crowns which would have increased their height by about 8 feet. Each sits on a separate pedestal about 7.5 feet high. They weigh around 700 tonnes each.

These colossi of Amenhotep were carved from single blocks which were transported from quarries 435 miles distant. Quartzite is a hard stone and cannot have been worked with the metal tools available . However, the marks left on the quarry walls are very different from those produced by pounding at Aswan and suggest that some sort of chiselling tool was used; perhaps a heavy stone pick. As with obelisks, the blocks for the colossi will have been quarried by cutting separation trenches around and beneath the block. The blocks were probably cut from a vertical rock-face to simplify the problem of removing them from the quarry. These colossi were the largest objects moved by the Egyptians. A representation of the Middle Kingdom (ca. 1850 BC) shows the transport of a smaller colossal statue of Djehutyhotep. This was estimated to have weighed around 58 tonnes and is shown mounted upright on a wooden sledge attached by 4 ropes, each rope being pulled by 43 men. Experiments suggest that about 2100 men were required to pull the Memnon Colossi and 3000 for each of the Ramesses II statues.

Source: “The Colossi of Western Thebes” by Dr Kate Spence, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow in the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Cambridge.

The Giant Stelae of Aksum, Ethiopia

The giant stelae of Aksum were grave markers erected mostly during the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and rival even the obelisks of Egypt in their dimensions.
Approximate overall length (metres)and estimated weightstonnes) are:
Stela 1. 33 m    520 tonnes
Stela 2  24.6 m 170 tonnes
Stela 3  20.6 m  160 tonnes
Stela 4  18.2 m   56 tonnes
Stela 5  15.8 m   75 tonnes
Stela 6  15.3 m   43 tonnes
The granite-like stone (nepheline syenite) used was extracted from quarries such as that at Gobedra Hill, about 3 miles from Aksum. Intended breaks were marked and rectangular sockets cut, traces of which are still visible in abandoned quarries. It is likely that wooden or metal wedges were inserted and hit to fracture the stone.

Source: “The Giant Stelae of Aksum” by Dr. Robin Coningham, Lecturer in South Asian Archaeology in the department of Archaeological Sciences at the University of Bradford.

The Pharos of Alexandria

Traditionally the seventh Wonder of the Ancient World, the Pharos lighthouse, was completed around 283 BC. Probably built of local limestone, granite was probably also used in appropriate places. Many of the granite blocks now on the seabed weigh up to 75 tonnes. Sophisticated cranes and lifting devices must have been used, and it has also been suggested that a spiral ramp may have existed inside the building. Despite some damage and repairs, the lighthouse largely survived until the 14th century. It finally collapsed in a serious earthquake in 1303.

Source: “The Colossi of Western Thebes” by Dr Kate Spence, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow in the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Cambridge.


The Colossal Stone Heads of the Olmec
The Olmec were ornamental sculptors in ancient Mesoamerica around 1200-400 BC. They carved countless objects ranging from tiny jade figures to immense basalt heads, stelae and thrones. Most of the stone heads range in height from 4.8 to 9.35 feet. Most weigh 8 to 13 tonnes but the Olmec are known to have moved much larger stones of 25 to 50 tonnes. The largest colossal head approaches this latter weight.

The Olmecs did not have wheeled vehicles, draft animals or block-and-tackle, and must have moved these objects 60 miles or more by human muscle. Experiments have shown that 25-50 people could have moved the heads but, over long distances, it is likely that hundreds would be needed.

Source: “The Colossal Stone Heads of the Olmec” by Professor David Webster of the Department of Anthropology at the Pennsylvania State University.


The Easter Island Statues
Rapa Nui (Easter Island) is probably the remotest inhabited spot on Earth but boasts rows of stone figures – estimated at around 1000, of which 394 remain abandoned in Rano Raraku quarry. The largest (El Gigante) is about 20 metres in length and weighs about 270 tonnes.

The statues were carved mostly from porous volcanic tuff though a few were of basalt or red scoria. The quarry is still littered with unfinished statues and around them are thousands of basalt picks — the hard stone tools used to cut the statues from the rock and carve them into shape. With metal tools the carving must have been difficult — it has been estimated that one statue could take 10 or 20 men up to a year to complete. The process is illustrated by those statues remaining in the quarry. They were carved face uppermost, and undercut, leaving only a keel of rock holding the statue to the bedrock beneath. The features of the face and head were finished in situ in the quarry, only the eyes being left for completion later.

Once the statues were complete they were detached from the rock and lowered by ropes down the sloping quarry face. The keel on the statue’s back helped to guide the descent by fitting into a groove.




Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #143 on: May 11, 2007, 09:44:05 pm »

Quote
I have been trying to find his background. Is this the one?

How would I know?  You're the egyptologist cultist.  Figured you know them all on a personal level.

Quote
Are you seriously trying to convince us that that depicts a helicopter?

No - the picture speaks for itself.  There's not ONE carving of a flying machine but FOUR.  NOT a co-incidence.


Did you notice how many times the words "probably", and "must have", are used?  The Egyptologists are a cult, whose members are trying to maintain a fantasy but don't really KNOW how it was all done.  They can guess, but when they try to re-create the project, they can't do it.  Nor are any of those feats, equal to the great pyramid.  It's base covers 13 acres of land. 

Quote
Sophisticated cranes and lifting devices must have been used
  There's that "must have" again.  I'd like to see that sophisticated crane.  I'd like to see what it was anchored with as well, so that when they started to lift the weight, the "crane" didn't tip over.


Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #144 on: May 12, 2007, 04:45:13 am »

Before you criticize his English be aware that is not his first landuage. See link for photos.

Several critics of Davidovits (this includes me :-) ) were arguing early that several passages of his book are only understandeable if the author never had visited the pyramids in person. Several of his claims can be disproven just by looking at the pyramids with the naked eye:

The uniformity of the pyramid blocks
The uniformity of their layering
The 1/10th millimeter precision of the core blocks
Following you will see some examples of blocks from pyramids of the 4th dynasty:


Fig. 1 - left: Uneven blocks in the descending passage in Meidum
Fig. 2 - right: Uneven blocks under the step mantle in Meidum

Fig. 3 - left: Loosely stacked blocks at the bent pyramid in Dahschur
Fig. 4 - right: Irregular blocks at weather protected positions at the bent pyramid, Dahschur

Fig. 5 - left: Totally irregular layering at Khufu's pyramid
Fig. 6 - right: Antique mortar filling at Khufu's pyramid

Fig. 7 - left: Horizontal gap near the top of Menkaure's pyramid
Fig. 8 - right: View into a weather protected gap on the south side of Menkaure's pyramid
These pictures are contradicting Davidovit's main arguments: neither are the pyramid blocks uniform or regular, neither are they layed out with "1/10th millimeter precision". Not even his argument of a uniform layer thickness is correct, it is reached as we can see at Khufu's pyramid partly by risky stacking of smaller stones. Also there are several constructions which could not have been casted at all, like the constellation in Tab. (5)
The breach-pictures are especially interesting, because the stones there were protected from weathering. Like the stones behind the mantle in Meidum which are totally irregular, even the back side of the casing blocks are irregular. But there seems to be a planned gap between casing and core blocks (which was probably filled with sand), so that no casting could have had accured there. Interesting, too, is the irregular form and the ends of the casing blocks of the bent pyramid. This, together with the loosely stacked blocks of this pyramid, should be the end of any cast-debate. It is nearly impossible to cast such forms.
How could such irregular blocks have been formed? How casted blocks would look can be seen on the south side of the great pyramid. There Vyse blasted a gap into the face of the pyramid to look for a secret entrance. To stabilize this, concrete blocks were casted. It is very easy to see the difference between the natural and later casted blocks. The regular form of the newer block on the right is clearly visible and in contrast to the original blocks on the left (with ancient mortar between them)

Another problem: If the Egyptians had used bottomless moulds, the material should have run between the gaps of the stones. A phenomenon nowhere to be seen on the pyramids, therefore the Egyptians must have had used casts with a bottom plate. But how and why were these removed? Davidovits argued, that the mortar visible between the stones were his casts - but this morter can nearly never be seen between different layers, most of the blocks are loosely stacked. So where are the moulds??? Another problem: the material of the mould (wood, brickwall, mortar/stone) forms prints on the surface of the casted objects. But where are they? All we can see are traces from breaking the stones - and from tools!!!


Fig. 10, 11 - Chisel marks in Meidum
The picture on the right shows the typical trace of a split block. To do this, several small chisels were driven into a small area of the stone to get a crack. After this, you can chase the crack around with several chisels wider apart until the stone splits. This block is one in the ceiling of second nieche in the Meidum-pyramid, like the one on the rigth side. This block shows traces of chisels used to cut away obstacles on the surface. You can find these two traces anywhere on the pyramids if you keep your eyes open.
But why should anyone work the surfaces of casted blocks? Why should one split or dress such a block? Especcially when Davidovits claims that the Egyptians had no tools to work or dress stone. Again a fault in Davidivits' theory!

Preliminary conclusion: A look at the building blocks of the pyramid suggests that Davidovits never took a look at his victims, the pyramids. I have no other explanation for the difference between Davidovits' premise and the real situation on location. In my opinion his Idea is already dead here.
Transport problems again...
Erich von Däniken calculated several years ago that the Egyptians needed to transport one block of about 2500 kg weight every 2 minutes to the pyramid to be ready in 20 years. Such a block can be handeled by about 20 men without major problems (look at "Force, work and ramps" in the archaeology/building-section). If we use a typical distance of 1000 meters from quarry to the desired position of the block on the pyramid, and a transporting speed of 20 meters per minute, we need a constant flow of 25 transport groups with 20 men each to, and an equal number back from the pyramid. Only 1000 men are necessary to achieve this.
[b/Davidovits on the other hand comes to very silly conclusions:[/b]

"2.The Transport of the Statue of Djehutihotep (1800 BC): 800 years after pyramid construction. Calculations deducted from this method yields that the transport of pyramid blocks on sledges would have required at least 52,500 men working together at one time. Yet, it would have been impossible to get the job done. This enormous number of men would have been squeezed together shoulder to shoulder at the work site, an area about the size of a large sports arena."
Hm, the picture of this transport gives him the estimated number of more than 50000 men? How? The statue weighs about 60 tons, and about 200 workers are shown transporting it. If we scale this down we find out, that according to this picture only 9 worker per 2.5 t-portion were needed, less than half of what I used, only 500 persons for the whole transport flow. So how does Davidovits come to such outrageous numbers?

In reality Davidovits' method makes the transport problem worse. In his theory the workers carried the wet proto-stone in baskets up the pyramid, so that about 50% of the dry weight had to be transported in form of water, too. In contrast to the force-saving sled pulling the baskets had to be carried. I think 50 kg is the upper limit a worker could carry constantly. The wet weight of a 2.5 t stone would have been between 3.5 and 4 tons, so each block needed at least 70 workers to carry the wet stone to the mould! Instead of 1000 persons you would have needed at least 3500.

The production of such a block makes some problems, too. In the infamous Nova-experiment Egyptologist Mark Lehner and Stone dresser Roger Hopkins visited the Mokkatam quarries, where stones are broken the same way as 5000 years ago. Th only difference are the iron tools used today. In this experiment, only 14 quarryworkers produced 200 blocks in only 12 days, using the traditional methods. One worker therefore produced the equivalent of 1.2 blocks per day. From Egyptan models and reliefs we know that the typical quarry team had 6 members, so each team could have prepared 2 blocks per day without any problem. In connection with a pull-team a block needed only 5 hours from to be an integral part of the rock formation to to be one of the largest manmade mountain.

The method to break stones: First a small ditch was hewn from the rock on 3 sides of the planned block. This ditch was so wide to put a foot into, and as deep as the planned stone should be high. The ditch behind the stone was the front of a new block. When it was completed, the small chisels we know from the Meidum pyramid were hewn from the front into the block, whereas people with levers were werking to assert force to the aft ditch. With these mehthods a crack was created along which the block splits from the ground. In the Nova-experiment normaly longer ditches were prepared to break loose a raw block for 2 or 3 stones. This raw block could be split very easily by perforating it along the planed boundary. After this a few hits with a heavy chisel and hammer are all thet is needed to separate such a block. Funny: Exactly such traces can be found on raw blocks in the valley temple of the bent pyramid...
Before I forget: prepared but not yet loosened blocks can be found in the quarry areas of Giza, like these in the southern Khafere-quarry I found in 1997:


Fig. 12, 13 - Quarry area in Giza
The left picture shows a block of about 3 m length which is prepared for breaking loose on 2 sides. This block would have been good for 2 - 3 Khufu-blocks. The picture on the right is interesting, too. It shows the boundary between the soft upper material (the one the Egyptians really quarried, according to Davidovits, and the hard limestone beneath. The one the Egyptians ignored because they had no tools to work it...

Another often heard question: Was there enough room in the quarries for all the needed workers? Well, the quarry in the southern region alone (one of 4 quarries used) had the dimensions 400 by 200 meters. If 420 stones were needed each day, and each working group could extract 2 blocks per day, 210 groups were needed on the 600 meter long front of the quarry. But there are suggestions that the 20 m thick lime stone layer was used in several steps, with only 3 steps in the quarry each group would have about 10 meters of working space. Although tere were 3 more quarries in use, this one alone would have had enough room for all teh workers. BTW: Accidentally we have calculated the number of basically needed quarry workers, too: about 1300 :-)

Davoidovits' method is much more complicated. For each stone about 3 tons of stone had to have been pulverized. Thin layer photos of the pyramid blocks showed no trace of compound stone, so it had to have been pulverized right down to the basic compounds - calcite cristals and micro fossils (see Steine und Steinbrüche im alten Ägypten, Springer 1991), to re-create the same material some 100 meters farer away. To get the same substance which could have been broken directly in the quarry. Absurd, in my eyes.To pulverize enough material for one block a working team would have used much more time than to break loose one block. Example: To get one stone a trench of about 20 cm width, 1 m depth and 2.5 m length had to be hewn from the rock - about 0.5 cubic meters. Or 1 cubic metes for two stones a day. This material is not pulverized but only loosened with a pick. To produce a Davidovits-stone, you would need about twice the material loosened from a work team, but pulverised. That's at least about 4 times the work force - no, 8 times, because in the time you prepare ONE stone the Davidovits way, TWO are conventionally broken.
But thats not all. There are materials needed which are rare in Egypt. Gypsum in large amounts, which hat to be transported from the western desert. In large caravans. The gypsum had to be quarried there, too. And unslaked lime. Which gives another problem: the Egyptians had only one way to produce this, by putting glowing charcoal to broken lime stone. Therefore their unslaked lime was not the white powder we know, but a deep gray mixture. We can see the colour from the mortar they used on the pyramids, see for example Tab.(6). The char coal relics in the mortar were target of the radiocarbon dating project, too. So we would expect the pyramid stones to be of similar color - but they have exactly the colours of the local limestone at each pyramid site. The only explanation: They had a better method which they only used for lime in the geopolymer, but that would be silly, too. Why use a worse method in the mortar? It makes no sense.

Davidovits also has no explanation for the use of small blocks. Such casting methods have the great benefit that large structures can be produced in a single instant. You are not restricted to small blocks you could carry with a sled. Davidovits' answer in the Nova-production "This old Pyramid": "We only see the outside of the pyramids. Maybe larger structures were cast on the inside, we just don't see them."
Well, thats pure speculation and no evidence. And wrong again. Wen can see the inside on several places, like the large breach in Menkaure's pyramid and in several grave digger tunnels. All these are going without exception through small, individual blocks...

Davidovits also had a funny explanation for one main point of critique. Many stones are showing sedimantary layers, exacly the same as in the quarries. Well, thats's only coincidence, he claims. The stones could not have been made in one day, so during the night sand could have been blown in which was covered by new material the next day, and therefore just looks like sedimentation.
Well, what heve we stupid geologists, which cannot distinguish between flight sand and sedimentation. BTW: If not even a SINGLE stone could have been produced with Davidovits' methods in one day, how long should the pyramid have been built on?
The Famina stela
The last piece of evidence is the Famina stela. This comes from the 3rd century BCE but should be a copy of a much older one. There you should find a recipe for artificial stone if you throw away the silly translations of the egyptologists:


"The translation introduces the elements discussed above
"(Col. 11): There is a mountain massif in its eastern region (of Elephantine) containing all the ores, all the crushed (weathered) stones (aggregates suitable for agglomeration), all the products


(Col. 12) sought for building the temples of the gods of the North and South, the stalls for sacred animals, the pyramid for the king, all statues that stand in temples and in sanctuaries. Moreover, all these chemical products are set before the face of Khnum and around him.


(Col. 13)...there is in the midst of the river a place of relaxation for every man who processes the ores on its two sides.


(Col. 15) Learn the names of the stony materials which are to be found...bekhen, dead (weathered) granite, mhtbt, r'qs, uteshi-hedsh (onion stone),... prdny, teshy.

(Col. 16) Learn the names of the rare ores located upstream...gold, silver, copper, iron, lapis-lazuli, turquoise, thnt (chrysocolla), jasper, Ka-y (radish stone), menu, esmerald, temikr (garlic stone), more over, neshemet, ta- mehy, hemaget, ibehet, bekes-ankh, green make up, black antimony, red ochre...


(Col.18).. .I found the god standing.. .he spoke to me: "I am Khnum, your creator, My arms are around you, to steady your body, to


(Col. 19) safeguard your limbs. I bestow on you rare ores upon rare ores... since creation nobody ever processed them (to make stone) for building the temples of the gods or rebuilding the ruined temples..."

The Famine Stele describes the invention of building with stone attributed to Zoser and Imhotep, builders of the first pyramid, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara (2,750 BC). According to the text, this invention of building with stone occurs through processing different minerals and ores which could be chemicals involved in the fabrication of man-made stone, or a type of concrete."
Well, this is no new translation, but only a summary of the texts which are really writen there. His method works like Sitchins Birch-workout: Use only what you need and summarize it as there would be a context between the far away standing sentences. In the original text I only could find lists of sacrifices for the god Chnum, and lists of materials which are produced in this part of Egypt. There are no "orders how to produce" something, the structure of the text itself is of another kind. I scanned the translation of the Famina-Stela from the original Roeder script "Urkunden zur Religion des Alten Ägypten, Übersetzt und eingeleitet von Günther Roeder, Jena, 1923"

See here: http://doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/pyramide/pyr17_e.php

For original and photos.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2007, 05:03:15 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #145 on: May 12, 2007, 10:02:01 am »

Quote
Did you notice how many times the words "probably", and "must have", are used?

This is how scientists express themselves when something has not been proven. Cultists make definitive statements when there is still uncertainty. E.g., the pyramids WERE made from poured concrete.

I am waiting an answer as to whether you believe Davidovits postulates 'poured concrete' because 2-3 ton blocks were too heavy to manoeuvre.

BTW it is common, even essential, to use the word allege when something is unproven, and especially when it is dubious. Certainly in law, where I have some experience, it is a sine quo non.

Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #146 on: May 12, 2007, 10:50:44 am »

Quote
This is how scientists express themselves when something has not been proven.

I rest my case.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #147 on: May 12, 2007, 11:08:14 am »

Quote
Cultists make definitive statements when there is still uncertainty. E.g., the pyramids WERE made from poured concrete.

I am waiting an answer as to whether you believe Davidovits postulates 'poured concrete' because 2-3 ton blocks were too heavy to manoeuvre.

BTW it is common, even essential, to use the word allege when something is unproven, and especially when it is dubious. Certainly in law, where I have some experience, it is a sine quo non.

I, also, rest my case.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #148 on: May 12, 2007, 11:19:24 am »

Quote
I am waiting an answer as to whether you believe Davidovits postulates 'poured concrete' because 2-3 ton blocks were too heavy to manoeuvre.


Obviously, Davidovits didn't believe in the manoeuvre theory, so he tested the samples.  Everyone is searching for how the pyramids were built because they aren't satisfied with that theory.  You are, and that's your choice.  Even tho there are depictions of different tasks, the point is, those methods have not been able to be reproduced.  Therefore, there are those of us who don't believe it.  You are a chemist, and have been trained in a certain way of thinking.  I'm not a scientist and I can choose to believe what I want, after reading the different sides of the story.  For me, it has to do with everything I've ever read and putting things together, and then deciding what sounds logical.  When that logic has been taken up by a professional at the risk of his career, I tend to believe it.  But - there's lots out there that hasn't been proven, but I can accept that also.
I believe that there is life on other planets, and that they are way ahead of us technologically.  Gradually, as our science expands, and we understand more, what I believe now, will be common knowledge in the future.  I'm not a wing-nut, that believes every story that comes down the pike.  Nor do I believe everything "scientists" write about.  Very often scientists change their decisions, and we're supposed to believe everything they say.  So If we believed them the first time, that makes us fools too for when they change their decision, we're now supposed to believe that decision too.  No questions asked.  I find this especially true when dating the human time line.  I find it's scientists, not your so-called cultists, that come out and say a thing is positively true, just to find out a while later, that it's not true.  
To me - the poured concrete theory is very logical from a building perspective.  Especially when getting nearer and nearer the top of the pyramid, where there's no room to manoeuvre.  Whether it was more work or less work, is irrelevant.  If you want something done, you've got to work to make it so.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #149 on: May 12, 2007, 11:27:31 am »

Cat - I am not a "cultist" and I'm tired of you trying to provoke me with that expression.

I have never stated categorically that the Pyramids WERE made of poured concrete.  I have copied articles from other sources where the reporter has used such in an attention-grabbing headline.  You keep telling me you have a PhD and I'm assuming you must be fairly intelligent to acquire that title.  Therefore, you must have the intelligence to figure out that what the newspapers use to get peoples attention, is not necessarily what the article says.  Even Davidovits shows how it COULD have been done AFTER he tested the samples.  Prof. Barsoum has taken up that research, and with newer technology, has found some discrepancies, in the formula.  However, it's a bonus, because the new results shows that the Egyptians didn't even need some of the ingredients it was previously thought.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2007, 03:50:03 pm by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy