How Was The Great Pyramid At Giza Constructed?

• This pyramid appears to be the final evolution of pyramid building that evolved from the mud brick mastabas which were supposedly the resting place of important dignitaries.
  
• The Great Pyramid has only one cartouche above the King’s chamber that purports to indicate that it is the burial chamber of Khufu (Cheops).
  
• This pyramid was covered with smooth white casing stones that partially collapsed after a severe earthquake and were later used as a “quarry” to construct some buildings in Cairo, notably the Mosque and Madrassa of Sultan Hassan (completed in 1359). Some of these stones contained hieroglyphics. The Greek historian Herodotus claims to have seen the Great Pyramid before the casing stones were removed.
  
• If some of the casing stones did contain hieroglyphics and if these stones were scattered around Lower Egypt, finding them and deciphering them could lead to some further understanding as to the construction of the pyramid.
  

Brasidas wrote:I rest my case on Korben, seriously how wound up is that boy.

Sorry Victor you may not be a gang but they are and ways have been, as they cannot fend for themselves.
Look at how Korben replies, the most infantile attempts to goad, he complains about a subject that involves him, asks to start a new topic yet does the same himself.
It shows up his failings and insecurities, as you know me, I really am not concerned over people like Korben, who I take as a play thing. It is the real bitches I dislike that use posters for their infantile feuds with each other, which they never move on from.


Anyway Korben is too easy and reacts every time, so is no fun really


Laters

darknessss wrote:says a lot really didge...most of it not good in reality....
kinda sad that you see people as "playthings"

I know I get "judgemental" at times....

I can even get nasty at times...

but "playthings"????

what happend to "the universality of peoples well being"?

or is that subject to "exceptions" too.....


and you know what....

telling someone thay cant navigate their way out of a paper bag could NOT be seen as an insult, by anyone normal.....

FGS...its sarcasm....

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I rest my case on Korben, seriously how wound up is that boy.

Sorry Victor you may not be a gang but they are and ways have been, as they cannot fend for themselves.
Look at how Korben replies, the most infantile attempts to goad, he complains about a subject that involves him, asks to start a new topic yet does the same himself.
It shows up his failings and insecurities, as you know me, I really am not concerned over people like Korben, who I take as a play thing. It is the real bitches I dislike that use posters for their infantile feuds with each other, which they never move on from.


Anyway Korben is too easy and reacts every time, so is no fun really


Laters

Ha ha i will keep this one its like priceless  you are truely the forum jester

Dance jester dance for me jester tell us one of your fantastical tales please  dance jester

darknessss wrote:says a lot really didge...most of it not good in reality....
kinda sad that you see people as "playthings"

I know I get "judgemental" at times....

I can even get nasty at times...

but "playthings"????

what happend to "the universality of peoples well being"?

or is that subject to "exceptions" too.....


and you know what....

telling someone thay cant navigate their way out of a paper bag could NOT be seen as an insult, by anyone normal.....

FGS...its sarcasm....

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:says a lot really didge...most of it not good in reality....
kinda sad that you see people as "playthings"

I know I get "judgemental" at times....

I can even get nasty at times...

but "playthings"????

what happend to "the universality of peoples well being"?

or is that subject to "exceptions" too.....


and you know what....

telling someone thay cant navigate their way out of a paper bag could NOT be seen as an insult, by anyone normal.....

FGS...its sarcasm....

It is an insult in an attempt to demean the other person, and even worse you defend him which sums up your utter bias. Seriously, as the person on the end of an insult it is me that decides whether it is.not you. You still sadly stick up for wet lefties and badly so
I do see people as play things like Korben because they are so mentally detached from reality. You think that is bad when you say some really shitty things to people and that you look to get a rise out of people yourself.
Sorry pull the other one mate

korban dallas wrote:

darknessss wrote:says a lot really didge...most of it not good in reality....
kinda sad that you see people as "playthings"

I know I get "judgemental" at times....

I can even get nasty at times...

but "playthings"????

what happend to "the universality of peoples well being"?

or is that subject to "exceptions" too.....


and you know what....

telling someone thay cant navigate their way out of a paper bag could NOT be seen as an insult, by anyone normal.....

FGS...its sarcasm....

Yup that`s me all over i am afraid sarcastic ....but i own that
and thank you

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


It is an insult in an attempt to demean the other person, and even worse you defend him which sums up your utter bias. Seriously, as the person on the end of an insult it is me that decides whether it is.not you. You still sadly stick up for wet lefties and badly so
I do see people as play things like Korben because they are so mentally detached from reality. You think that is bad when you say some really shitty things to people and that you look to get a rise out of people yourself.
Sorry pull the other one mate

Yet the only shitty thing where said by you to me using false indignation to justify it
your nothing more than a fraud and a liar a person whos words can not be trusted your a joke but keep claiming all sorts of rubbish about me  the only person it hurts is you
makes you look more foolish and childish and untrustworthy every post you make

you need serious psychiatric evaluation and soon because you are fucking crazy

Not a doctor

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:hey Korban

want an idea of how they egyptians managed to move them slabs????


http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/physicists-figure-how-ancient-egyptians-moved-pyramid-stones/

I wonder how the ancients move slabs like these then Victor, this one weighs in excess of 1000 tonnes, where 3 make up the base of a temple at Baalbek, wonder if your theory would work there then

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Yup that`s me all over i am afraid sarcastic ....but i own that
and thank you

Whether you think it is sarcastic or not it is still an insult, just as sarcasm is itself.


I see it did not take long before sassy joined in

See I told you Victor with have one sad pathetic girl gang on flap, that slags Sassy off, which formed because sassy uses gangs to get at posters
Both as infantile as each other

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


I wonder how the ancients move slabs like these then Victor, this one weighs in excess of 1000 tonnes, where 3 make up the base of a temple at Baalbek, wonder if your theory would work there then

not MY theory

BUT why wouldnt it work....the scale is different....but.......

must say i'd love to see it tried....


I suppose ONE difference may be the differnt surface material///I doubt this is on sand or at least it wont be the fine dessert sand....

moreover the romans have ONE advantage over the egyptians....plentiful supplies of wood (and come to that iron)

It would ...I guess..... be possible to move these blocks on rollers....though you wouldnt want one "getting away from you " would you......

thing is ...as long as the bloody thing can be KEPT moveing then its not too great a problem ...even at 1000 tonnes.....

see "rolling friction" is not so great....and once moving even 1000 tonnes requires a lot less force than you would immagine to keep it moving.....the trick is GETTING it moving....

I have ...on my own ...moved a two tonne wooden building on greased wooden slides....

now getting it started required an unbeleiveable amount of force...supplied by a winch......but when it started to move it did so very quickly ..I dont like 2 tonnes moving quickly ...it then settled down and the force to keep it moving albeit a LOT slower than when it first moved was miniscule in comparison....

now ...1 know 1000 tonnes is a bit more than 2   and I know the romans didnt have electric winches....

BUT they DID have the windlass...(which is much the same but slave powered....)

they were competant rope workers and they could make wooden or even iron rollers....(and they had plenty of slaves available....)  

so I dont suppose it would be beyond them to move these things...In fact considering the engineering feats we KNOW they did and know HOW they did it would surprise me if they didnt find tis sort of thing little more than an excercise in good engineering.....

Brasidas wrote:Shall post this in readiness for Korben's next hilarious rant







Night, really have to get some sleep.

But ill look forward to seeing some more posts with Korbern frothing at the mouth

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Shall post this in readiness for Korben's next hilarious rant







Night, really have to get some sleep.

But ill look forward to seeing some more posts with Korbern frothing at the mouth

hallucinations....any thing else  

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

not MY theory

BUT why wouldnt it work....the scale is different....but.......

must say i'd love to see it tried....


I suppose ONE difference may be the differnt surface material///I doubt this is on sand or at least it wont be the fine dessert sand....

moreover the romans have ONE advantage over the egyptians....plentiful supplies of wood (and come to that iron)

It would ...I guess..... be possible to move these blocks on rollers....though you wouldnt want one "getting away from you " would you......

thing is ...as long as the bloody thing can be KEPT moveing then its not too great a problem ...even at 1000 tonnes.....

see "rolling friction" is not so great....and once moving even 1000 tonnes requires a lot less force than you would immagine to keep it moving.....the trick is GETTING it moving....

I have ...on my own ...moved a two tonne wooden building on greased wooden slides....

now getting it started required an unbeleiveable amount of force...supplied by a winch......but when it started to move it did so very quickly ..I dont like 2 tonnes moving quickly ...it then settled down and the force to keep it moving albeit a LOT slower than when it first moved was miniscule in comparison....

now ...1 know 1000 tonnes is a bit more than 2   and I know the romans didnt have electric winches....

BUT they DID have the windlass...(which is much the same but slave powered....)

they were competant rope workers and they could make wooden or even iron rollers....(and they had plenty of slaves available....)  

so I dont suppose it would be beyond them to move these things...In fact considering the engineering feats we KNOW they did and know HOW they did it would surprise me if they didnt find tis sort of thing little more than an excercise in good engineering.....

One huge flaw with the above, the temple was built by the Romans on top of an older structure Victor
So how did they move such large slabs into place

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
hallucinations....any thing else  

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You show symptoms of several mental health disorders. While they have not reached the level of full diagnosis, i suggest seeking the advice of a therapist is recommended, as the symptoms may become overwhelming, more frequent, and more serious.

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
You show symptoms of several mental health disorders. While they have not reached the level of full diagnosis, i suggest seeking the advice of a therapist is recommended, as the symptoms may become overwhelming, more frequent, and more serious.

So now you are a doctor.

Fucking pricless.

Brasidas wrote:
Nobody thinks it is aliens Bee, try reading through the thread, the point is in regards to if technology was learnt and lost in the past.

For example, nobody can replicate the technique for building Stradivari instruments. Or how about Damascus steel?

Brasidas wrote:Behave Victor, let me know when you come up with a viable solution to this problem I have presented you with, the blocks on the temple have been placed higher up and are not the foundation slabs, which means they had to be lifted all 800 tonnes of them, 3 of them

Right I have work in the morning so will reply tomorrow.

Night

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Behave Victor, let me know when you come up with a viable solution to this problem I have presented you with, the blocks on the temple have been placed higher up and are not the foundation slabs, which means they had to be lifted all 800 tonnes of them, 3 of them

Right I have work in the morning so will reply tomorrow.

Night

lifting 800 tonnes stone slabs is (relatively )easy.......if you have enough (potentially expendable) manpower and sufficient time.....

and plenty of timber

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Behave Victor, let me know when you come up with a viable solution to this problem I have presented you with, the blocks on the temple have been placed higher up and are not the foundation slabs, which means they had to be lifted all 800 tonnes of them, 3 of them

Right I have work in the morning so will reply tomorrow.

Night

lifting 800 tonnes stone slabs is (relatively )easy.......if you have enough (potentially expendable) manpower and sufficient time.....

and plenty of timber

korban dallas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

lifting 800 tonnes stone slabs is (relatively )easy.......if you have enough (potentially expendable) manpower and sufficient time.....

and plenty of timber

The pyramid is estimated to have around 2,300,000 stone blocks that weigh from 2 to 30 tons each and there are even some blocks that weigh over 50 tons

No need to lift 800 tonnes 50 tonne seems to be the max they moved

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
The pyramid is estimated to have around 2,300,000 stone blocks that weigh from 2 to 30 tons each and there are even some blocks that weigh over 50 tons

No need to lift 800 tonnes 50 tonne seems to be the max they moved

Korben, we are talking about the Temple at Baalbek, which has 3 800 tonne stone slabs on top of 300 tonne stone slabs at this temple.


Michel Alouf, the former curator of the ruins, once wrote of the Trilithon:
'... in spite of their immense size, they [the Trilithon stones] are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them. No description will give an exact idea of the bewildering and stupefying effect of these tremendous blocks on the spectator'.

The quarry is near by, so imagine it is possible to move them to the temple but how they were lifted accurately into place. Timber would certainly be a problem due to the weight here surely to use as rollers?

Brasidas wrote:Well aware of heavier Obelisks being lifted upright into place, but this is lifting off the ground and placing 3 huge stone slabs accurately again into place. We are talking a huge weight here being lifted up and then placed perfectly on top. I am not aware of ancient crane that could lift weights that big, even today we have specialists cranes for such weights.

The next issue why use such huge stone slabs when smaller ones can be used, little sense can be made to why they would have done so.

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Korben, we are talking about the Temple at Baalbek, which has 3 800 tonne stone slabs on top of 300 tonne stone slabs at this temple.


Michel Alouf, the former curator of the ruins, once wrote of the Trilithon:
'... in spite of their immense size, they [the Trilithon stones] are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them. No description will give an exact idea of the bewildering and stupefying effect of these tremendous blocks on the spectator'.

The quarry is near by, so imagine it is possible to move them to the temple but how they were lifted accurately into place. Timber would certainly be a problem due to the weight here surely to use as rollers?

Oh !!! ok .....my mistake

according to a quick inquiry of the inter web
Apparently  the quarry was slightly higher up than the temple itself so no lifting was required to move the stones the 800 meters (2,600 ft) to the temple

Brasidas wrote:This is one suggestion I read about.



The next problem is how the Romans might have manoeuvred the giant blocks into position. Ragette suggests the `bury and re-exacavate' method,(33) where ramps of compacted earth would be constructed on a slight incline up to the top of the wall - which before the Trilithon was added stood at an estimated twenty-five feet high. The blocks would then be pulled upwards by pulley gangs on the other side until they reached the required height; a similar method is thought to have been employed to erect the horizontal trilithon stones at Stonehenge, for instance. Playing devil's advocate here, I would ask: how did the pulley gangs manage to bring together these stones so exactly and how were they able to achieve such precision movement when the land beyond the podium slopes gently downwards? Only by creating a raised ramp on the hill-slope itself, and then placing the pulley gangs on the other side of the wall could an operation of this kind even be attempted.

And how were the stone blocks lifted from the rollers to allow final positioning? Ragette proposes the use of scaffoldings, ramps and windlasses (ie. capstans) like those employed by the Renaissance architect Domenico Fontana to erect a 327-tonne Egyptian obelisk in front of St Peter's Basilica in Rome. To achieve this amount of lift, Fontana used an incredible 40 windlasses, which necessitated a combined force of 800 men and 140 horses.

Based on an estimated weight of 800 tonnes per stone(34) (even though he cites each one as 1000-tonnes a piece earlier in the same book(35)), Ragette proposes that, with a five-tonne lifting capacity per drilled Lewis hole, each block would have required 160 attachments to the upper surface. He goes on: `Four each could be hooked to a pulley of 20 tons capacity which in the case of six rolls needed an operating power of about 3« tons. The task therefore consisted of the simultaneous handling of forty windlasses of 3« tons each. The pulleys were most likely attached to timber frames bridging across the stone.'(36)

Such ideas are pure speculation. No evidence of any such transportation has ever come to light at Baalbek, and the surface of the Trilithon has not revealed any tell-tale signs of drilled Lewis holes. Admittedly, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman remaining in the quarry does contain a seemingly random series of round holes in its upper surface, yet their precise purpose remains a mystery.

As evidence that the Romans possessed the knowledge to lift and transport extremely heavy weights, Ragette cites the fact that between AD 60 and 70, ie. the proposed time-frame of construction of the Jupiter temple, a man named Heron of Alexandria compiled an important work outlining this very practice, including the use of levers to raise up and position large stone blocks.(37) Curiously, the only surviving example of this treatise is an Arabic translation made by a native of Baalbek named Costa ibn Luka in around 860 AD.(38) Did it suggest that knowledge of this engineering manual had been preserved in the town since Roman times, being passed on from generation to generation until it finally reached the hands of Costa ibn Luka? Of course it is possible, but whether or not it was of any practical use when it came to the construction of the Trilithon is quite another matter.

Brasidas wrote:I know plenty of Roman and Greek history Korben, but this is what puzzles me why use such large stone slabs, where it does not seem to be the case elsewhere. It is not very practical either from what I understand, hence it would be interesting to understand more.

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

lifting 800 tonnes stone slabs is (relatively )easy.......if you have enough (potentially expendable) manpower and sufficient time.....

and plenty of timber

Timber is not going to help you is it?
Do you have 40,000 men to spare?

Brasidas wrote:Fair enough, to me these are interesting monuments from our past which to me leaves you guessing how they were able to achieve. To me we should stand in awe of their achievements more than we do considering the basic technology they used back then

korban dallas wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Fair enough, to me these are interesting monuments from our past which to me leaves you guessing how they were able to achieve. To me we should stand in awe of their achievements more than we do considering the basic technology they used back then

a rose by any other name is still a rose
your original premise is /was we have lost some knowledge we once had ,and i don`t disagree this is true for a lot of things

But diminishing the basic core principles that actually underpin all these "mystery`s " and ascribing what is  a pretty basic building principle ie put one stone on top of an other stone and point it this way accurately  to a lost knowledge
i feel diminishes there accomplishment  and is the root of the alien builder,mystic fairy folk (i know that`s not your claim)
one of the reasons i became an engineer is because of the awe at our accomplishments and wanted to know how things worked
engineering electronic,mechanical,and structural are what i am trained in
The Quaifications i have to be honest are meaningless hear as you have no way to check  them and could be complete bullshit
Although i can`t claim a degree
i do have letters after my name

 

korban dallas wrote:Can i ask you a question Brasidas it may seem a strange one

do you have a shed
if so could you give me a outline of what you use it for and what kind of tools you own ...or even a picture

Brasidas wrote:

korban dallas wrote:Can i ask you a question Brasidas it may seem a strange one

do you have a shed
if so could you give me a outline of what you use it for and what kind of tools you own ...or even a picture

Just a garage, no shed I am afraid.
Mainly use tools for gardening, which I enjoy. Not much of a handyman I am afraid.

Brasidas wrote:Sounds interesting Korben, you should like Victor show some of your work.

Anyway have a good evening, as have things to do.

Night