Contemporary Great Pyramid Document

[Diviacus]

I would be interested to hear his arguments for the major problems of construction of the pyramids presented in here.

No single theory that i've stumbled across to has even tried to answer any of the actual known problems of the construction of the pyramid, but rather present a theory how a large building in general built from 2 ton stone blocks could be built in 20 years. ignore the geometry, ignore the lack of advanced measurement, ignore the granite blocks, ignore the construction rate, ignore the astronomy - present a rough idea of ramps, wet sand and logs and how they could help moving heavy stones from place A to B, not even presenting a calculation of what kind of transportation rate could be achieved with this method with the suggested workforce.

I hope Mr. Abrams does better with his theory.

You obviously haven't read the book of C.G. Smith (and not E.M. Abrams ).
He does propose answers to the construction problems, he does take the geometry into account, he does take the granite blocks into account, he does present a calculation of the transportation rate...

[Skiessa]

I would be interested to hear his arguments for the major problems of construction of the pyramids presented in here.

No single theory that i've stumbled across to has even tried to answer any of the actual known problems of the construction of the pyramid, but rather present a theory how a large building in general built from 2 ton stone blocks could be built in 20 years. ignore the geometry, ignore the lack of advanced measurement, ignore the granite blocks, ignore the construction rate, ignore the astronomy - present a rough idea of ramps, wet sand and logs and how they could help moving heavy stones from place A to B, not even presenting a calculation of what kind of transportation rate could be achieved with this method with the suggested workforce.

I hope Mr. Abrams does better with his theory.

You obviously haven't read the book of C.G. Smith (and not E.M. Abrams ).
He does propose answers to the construction problems, he does take the geometry into account, he does take the granite blocks into account, he does present a calculation of the transportation rate...

o____o that's why i asked for the arguments.

[Diviacus]

My initial post was mainly to give a reference of an author who studied the whole project, with a building engineer point of view.
It was:
- to say that all dicussions about the dozens of interesting points of the construction and finally the credibility of the construction within a certain time are very difficult within a post. I will not here summarize the 290 pages of the book.
- to ask if anybody had studied the book.

[Minimalist]

This video speaks for itself.

https://youtu.be/E5pZ7uR6v8c

A brilliant guy no doubt, but how does this video exlain the laser-accurate shape and placement of the granite blocks, and their transportation of 900 miles from Aswan?

Water transport along the Nile. Conveniently the Nile flows north so they would have had the current with them. The biggest problem with the granite blocks is cutting them to size and shaping them given the tools they had.

[Minimalist]

Many moons ago, on this very board, we used to get visitors from a site called the Hall of Maat. Most of the ones who showed up here were apologists for the Egyptology club and their "tombs-and-tombs-only" point of view. We had these discussions many times and I recall at one point one of them making the point that the Egyptians were very experienced in moving large amounts of big stones. I disputed that based on photography. These were not the original photos but close enough.

The limestone blocks at Giza.



Note that the block comes up to the man's shoulder.

Immediately preceding Khufu was Sneferu who built the Red Pyramid - among others, which is an interesting discussion in and of itself! - and here is a photo of a group of tourists standing at the entrance.



If you look straight across you quickly note that the adults height is the equivalent of 3-4 layers of stone.

Finally, we have the Step Pyramid of Djoser a third dynasty king and if you use the same method of comparing the heights of the humans to the layers of stone



I get about 5. So while the Egyptians might have had experience moving a lot of stones there is precious little evidence that they moved a lot of BIG stones prior to Giza.

Then of course we still have the issue of how the base of the pyramid ( 13 acres ) was leveled with copper chisels and hammer stones. Lastly, any discussion of how the pyramids were built or could have been built is absurd until we know what kind of ramp was used.

[Skiessa]

Many moons ago, on this very board, we used to get visitors from a site called the Hall of Maat. Most of the ones who showed up here were apologists for the Egyptology club and their "tombs-and-tombs-only" point of view. We had these discussions many times and I recall at one point one of them making the point that the Egyptians were very experienced in moving large amounts of big stones. I disputed that based on photography. These were not the original photos but close enough.

The limestone blocks at Giza.

Note that the block comes up to the man's shoulder.

Immediately preceding Khufu was Sneferu who built the Red Pyramid - among others, which is an interesting discussion in and of itself! - and here is a photo of a group of tourists standing at the entrance.

If you look straight across you quickly note that the adults height is the equivalent of 3-4 layers of stone.

Finally, we have the Step Pyramid of Djoser a third dynasty king and if you use the same method of comparing the heights of the humans to the layers of stone

I get about 5. So while the Egyptians might have had experience moving a lot of stones there is precious little evidence that they moved a lot of BIG stones prior to Giza.

Then of course we still have the issue of how the base of the pyramid ( 13 acres ) was leveled with copper chisels and hammer stones. Lastly, any discussion of how the pyramids were built or could have been built is absurd until we know what kind of ramp was used.

while i haven't really looked on to the red pyramid i would love to see the evidence for that the pharaoh sneferu actually built it. the whole procedure of making assumptions without having the evidence and then calling anyone who questions the assumption a pseudocientist doesn't really give very convincing picture about the egyptology, or the whole archaeology in general - assuming that göbekli tepe was constructed by hunter-gatherers :---D

did they find a mummy? did they find documents for the construction process? what kind of evidence relates the red pyramid to sneferu?

the steeper the ramp, the harder the work, and making it gentle will quickly escalate in to need of building more cubic meters of the ramp than the pyramid itself. and even with the ramp we would still lack anything that would even remotely explain all the other problems mentioned here. moving big stones is one big problem in itself - moving them fast is another. shaping them, especially granite, cannot be explained with just devotion and muscle-power. the perfection of geometry and astronomical alignment is something one doesn't achieve even with experienced hands and unknown type of tools.

[Diviacus]

while i haven't really looked on to the red pyramid i would love to see the evidence for that the pharaoh sneferu actually built it. the whole procedure of making assumptions without having the evidence and then calling anyone who questions the assumption a pseudocientist doesn't really give very convincing picture about the egyptology, or the whole archaeology in general - assuming that göbekli tepe was constructed by hunter-gatherers :---D

did they find a mummy? did they find documents for the construction process? what kind of evidence relates the red pyramid to sneferu?

There you have the evidence
https://screenshot.net/fr/v9kmjt4

the steeper the ramp, the harder the work, and making it gentle will quickly escalate in to need of building more cubic meters of the ramp than the pyramid itself. and even with the ramp we would still lack anything that would even remotely explain all the other problems mentioned here. moving big stones is one big problem in itself - moving them fast is another. shaping them, especially granite, cannot be explained with just devotion and muscle-power. the perfection of geometry and astronomical alignment is something one doesn't achieve even with experienced hands and unknown type of tools.

Again, you have to read good books as "How the great pyramid was built" of C.G.Smith or ""Experiments in Egyptian archaeology" of D.A.Stocks. If you don't want to read these books, then don't claim there are no explanations.

[circumspice]

while i haven't really looked on to the red pyramid i would love to see the evidence for that the pharaoh sneferu actually built it. the whole procedure of making assumptions without having the evidence and then calling anyone who questions the assumption a pseudocientist doesn't really give very convincing picture about the egyptology, or the whole archaeology in general - assuming that göbekli tepe was constructed by hunter-gatherers :---D

did they find a mummy? did they find documents for the construction process? what kind of evidence relates the red pyramid to sneferu?

There you have the evidence
https://screenshot.net/fr/v9kmjt4

the steeper the ramp, the harder the work, and making it gentle will quickly escalate in to need of building more cubic meters of the ramp than the pyramid itself. and even with the ramp we would still lack anything that would even remotely explain all the other problems mentioned here. moving big stones is one big problem in itself - moving them fast is another. shaping them, especially granite, cannot be explained with just devotion and muscle-power. the perfection of geometry and astronomical alignment is something one doesn't achieve even with experienced hands and unknown type of tools.

Again, you have to read good books as "How the great pyramid was built" of C.G.Smith or ""Experiments in Egyptian archaeology" of D.A.Stocks. If you don't want to read these books, then don't claim there are no explanations.

@Diviacus: Skiessa doesn't want evidence that Sneferu or Khufu or Khafre or Menkaure built any of the pyramids. On the contrary, he wants evidence to debunk the generally accepted facts that native ancient Egyptians built any stone edifices in Egypt. He concedes that they may have built the mud brick monuments & tombs, calling them by the derogatory term 'mudcakes'. He is not looking for insights on how ancient Egyptians built anything. His agenda is crystal clear. That's why I bowed out of this mockery of a discussion.

[Tiompan]

or the whole archaeology in general - assuming that göbekli tepe was constructed by hunter-gatherers

You have the cart before the horse .
It was assumed ,prior to the discovery of GT and according to the available evidence, that foragers didn't build monuments .
Gt produced evidence to support the claim that foragers did indeed build monuments .

and astronomical alignment is something one doesn't achieve even with experienced hands and unknown type of tools.

What astronomical alignment ? If you mean the S-N alignment then that is not aligned on any heavenly body .
That alignment could be achieved by simple tech and tools available at the time .

[Simon21]

while i haven't really looked on to the red pyramid i would love to see the evidence for that the pharaoh sneferu actually built it. the whole procedure of making assumptions without having the evidence and then calling anyone who questions the assumption a pseudocientist doesn't really give very convincing picture about the egyptology, or the whole archaeology in general - assuming that göbekli tepe was constructed by hunter-gatherers :---D

did they find a mummy? did they find documents for the construction process? what kind of evidence relates the red pyramid to sneferu?

There you have the evidence
https://screenshot.net/fr/v9kmjt4

the steeper the ramp, the harder the work, and making it gentle will quickly escalate in to need of building more cubic meters of the ramp than the pyramid itself. and even with the ramp we would still lack anything that would even remotely explain all the other problems mentioned here. moving big stones is one big problem in itself - moving them fast is another. shaping them, especially granite, cannot be explained with just devotion and muscle-power. the perfection of geometry and astronomical alignment is something one doesn't achieve even with experienced hands and unknown type of tools.

Again, you have to read good books as "How the great pyramid was built" of C.G.Smith or ""Experiments in Egyptian archaeology" of D.A.Stocks. If you don't want to read these books, then don't claim there are no explanations.

@Diviacus: Skiessa doesn't want evidence that Sneferu or Khufu or Khafre or Menkaure built any of the pyramids. On the contrary, he wants evidence to debunk the generally accepted facts that native ancient Egyptians built any stone edifices in Egypt. He concedes that they may have built the mud brick monuments & tombs, calling them by the derogatory term 'mudcakes'. He is not looking for insights on how ancient Egyptians built anything. His agenda is crystal clear. That's why I bowed out of this mockery of a discussion.

This is having the distinct stink of the old RSA and Rhodesian education system which assured pupils that blacks "could not" have built Zimbabwe.

[Tiompan]

" blacks "could not" have built Zimbabwe."
Or foragers GT .

[Skiessa]

while i haven't really looked on to the red pyramid i would love to see the evidence for that the pharaoh sneferu actually built it. the whole procedure of making assumptions without having the evidence and then calling anyone who questions the assumption a pseudocientist doesn't really give very convincing picture about the egyptology, or the whole archaeology in general - assuming that göbekli tepe was constructed by hunter-gatherers :---D

did they find a mummy? did they find documents for the construction process? what kind of evidence relates the red pyramid to sneferu?

There you have the evidence
https://screenshot.net/fr/v9kmjt4

the steeper the ramp, the harder the work, and making it gentle will quickly escalate in to need of building more cubic meters of the ramp than the pyramid itself. and even with the ramp we would still lack anything that would even remotely explain all the other problems mentioned here. moving big stones is one big problem in itself - moving them fast is another. shaping them, especially granite, cannot be explained with just devotion and muscle-power. the perfection of geometry and astronomical alignment is something one doesn't achieve even with experienced hands and unknown type of tools.

Again, you have to read good books as "How the great pyramid was built" of C.G.Smith or ""Experiments in Egyptian archaeology" of D.A.Stocks. If you don't want to read these books, then don't claim there are no explanations.

"..referred to the starting of the construction" if i'd write a note which claims that I built the falcon heavy with my screwdriver and hammer and the archaeologists 20,000 years from now would find it, should they believe it or not? It's funny how the mainstream archaeology always claims the pharaohs to have been egomaniacs, but somehow they never consider this when they find some random notes claiming such astonishing buildings to be constructed by them.

any evidence, like methods of construction which explain the insane construction rate, does such thing exist? i'm really open for this one, i haven't looked to the red pyramid at all before.

"If you don't want to read these books" asks for the evidence, get's hypotheses. I've already asked for the arguments on the book, and i'd still be happy to hear them, but somehow even if someone on this forum has read the book he has failed to mention ANY theory from the book so far. the book itself is a claim (a theory without the evidence is always a claim) - it's horrible argumentation tactics to mention a book and tell the opponent to go to read the book, instead of just quoting the book in the argument.

the burden of proof lies on the mainstream archaeology since it has made claims that it cannot verify with the evidence, not on the people who refuse to believe it.

[Skiessa]

while i haven't really looked on to the red pyramid i would love to see the evidence for that the pharaoh sneferu actually built it. the whole procedure of making assumptions without having the evidence and then calling anyone who questions the assumption a pseudocientist doesn't really give very convincing picture about the egyptology, or the whole archaeology in general - assuming that göbekli tepe was constructed by hunter-gatherers :---D

did they find a mummy? did they find documents for the construction process? what kind of evidence relates the red pyramid to sneferu?

There you have the evidence
https://screenshot.net/fr/v9kmjt4

the steeper the ramp, the harder the work, and making it gentle will quickly escalate in to need of building more cubic meters of the ramp than the pyramid itself. and even with the ramp we would still lack anything that would even remotely explain all the other problems mentioned here. moving big stones is one big problem in itself - moving them fast is another. shaping them, especially granite, cannot be explained with just devotion and muscle-power. the perfection of geometry and astronomical alignment is something one doesn't achieve even with experienced hands and unknown type of tools.

Again, you have to read good books as "How the great pyramid was built" of C.G.Smith or ""Experiments in Egyptian archaeology" of D.A.Stocks. If you don't want to read these books, then don't claim there are no explanations.

@Diviacus: Skiessa doesn't want evidence that Sneferu or Khufu or Khafre or Menkaure built any of the pyramids. On the contrary, he wants evidence to debunk the generally accepted facts that native ancient Egyptians built any stone edifices in Egypt. He concedes that they may have built the mud brick monuments & tombs, calling them by the derogatory term 'mudcakes'. He is not looking for insights on how ancient Egyptians built anything. His agenda is crystal clear. That's why I bowed out of this mockery of a discussion.

Lol, still somehow the only evidence so far that i've got for the construction of the pyramids has been that i don't have the evidence that it didn't happen. I'm looking for the evidence - I just don't consider dogmas as one.

[Diviacus]

it's horrible argumentation tactics to mention a book and tell the opponent to go to read the book, instead of just quoting the book in the argument.

I have mentioned two books. I did not only read these biooks. I studied them, as I have been for three years now working on the time the ancient people spent when constructing their buidings (and I will work at least three more years on this subject). As I said, there are 550 pages in these two books. I will not summarised them as there are too many different subjects. If you don't want to look for the evidences (as they are written in these books), I will not spend time for you. I don't care if you don't want to spend some time reading them (and other books).

[circumspice]

Lol, still somehow the only evidence so far that i've got for the construction of the pyramids has been that i don't have the evidence that it didn't happen. I'm looking for the evidence - I just don't consider dogmas as one.

@Skiessa: Similarly, one cannot prove a negative. Your whole contention is that the native ancient Egyptians could not have built any of the stone monuments. You offer no proof whatsoever for your belief.
You simply state that it couldn't be done in ancient times & it can't be done in modern times. You also state that any evidence of contemporary attribution is either forged by 'mainstream archaeology' or perhaps is the ancient Egyptians 'trolling' archaeologists in the distant future. Your whole argument rests upon your demand that it all be proven to your satisfaction, not with you offering even some small shred of evidence that it couldn't be done... So what does that make you? The entire tone of your contribution to this 'discussion' is argumentative & also racist.
You have not contributed anything substantive to the 'discussion'.