Psalms 118:22 The stone [which] the builders refused is become the head [stone] of the corner.
head of the corner (l'rosh pinnah) = 666
Posted on 12/31/2001 12:33:44 PM PST by John Farson
Like millions of tourists, from the Ancient Greeks on, the Blairs may have been victims of one of the world's oldest confidence tricks when they walked round the Pyramids on the Prime Minister's holiday trip to Egypt.To the uninitiated eye, the 2.3 million blocks of stones rising to a 146-metre peak on the 4,500-year-old Great Pyramid near Cairo look as solid as pure granite. But French architects and scientists believe they are nothing more than weathered concrete blocks, moulded on the spot, stone by stone and layer by layer, from the ground upwards.
The theory, being explored by scientists at Montpellier University, has thrown Egyptology into turmoil. It could destroy thousands of years of speculation on the greatest of all riddles of the sands, one that has fascinated Hollywood and made fortunes for novelists such as Christian Jacq. Researchers believe that only the reluctance of the Egyptian authorities to allow more samples to be examined stands between them and final proof.
Joël Bertho, an architect and specialist in trompe-l'oeil, used his expert knowledge of reconstituted stone to explain how easy it was to pass off concrete and mortar for real carved stone. 'It needs a trained specialist to identify the basic material,' he said.
'The Egyptians had mastered many techniques of plaster and mortar and knew all about making bricks. There is no reason why they could not reconstitute stone into blocks weighing two or three tonnes layer by layer rather than try to heave huge weights up several hundred feet without even the benefit of crude cranes. I have even been able to identify frame marks left by some moulds.'
The theory, set out in a book called La Pyramide Reconsti tuée (Unic), is largely based on the precision of the joints between the stones. 'Joints are invisible and it would be impossible to pass a cigarette paper between them. To carve blocks of solid stone to tolerances of hardly a millimetre would need incredible skill without the benefit of machine tools.'
Montpellier was drawn into the research because Bertho is designing a scientific park in the city. At its Laboratoire de Tectonophysique, Suzanne Raynaud has cut samples of stone from the Great Pyramid into thin slices to examine under a microscope. 'I went from surprise to surprise,' she said. 'The arrangement of micro-fossils had been disturbed, which could be explained by the manipulation of reconstituted stone. The components of what appears to be solid stone could have been crushed or passed through a sieve before being put into moulds.'
Other tests are under way but another top scientist, Claude Gril, said they were unlikely to be conclusive without comparisons between the blocks of stone in the pyramid walls and material from quarries where they are found. 'Unfortunately, the Egyptian Antiquities office is opposed to more detailed research, which we are carrying out with a Belgian nuclear laboratory, and will not allow more samples to be gathered for comparison,' he said.
As a result, a hunt has started among Egyptology collections in Europe, including a Rouen museum which has a rock from the Great Pyramid in its reserve. A Paris laboratory has declared that the stone is a form of mortar, but there have been protests from several Egyptologists who say Bertho's theory is nonsense.
If the claim is proved, it would destroy pages of speculation on how the pyramids were built. But until the mould theory is proved or shattered, the dominant opinion will remain Cecil B. De Mille's images of slaves and whips.
Will they say the same of us in 2000 years?
Sources, please? (I'm willing to believe you, but I want to see it first, please.)
The Sphinx was originally an outcropping of a type common in Egypt, weathered with a head. It was carved to the head of a lion, a common animal of the region at the time. Later the muzzle was chopped off so the face of the pharoah of the day could be carved in its stead, even though it destroyed the proportions of the entire sphinx. Later, the rest of the body of the lion was excavated and carved and blocked. The current face was carved probably 4000 years ago, but the Sphinx was already ancient by then.
Psalms 118:22 The stone [which] the builders refused is become the head [stone] of the corner.
head of the corner (l'rosh pinnah) = 666
This is predicated on my belief that once man left the garden and evil crept in we became a degenerative race, physically, as well as intellecually. The difference between perfection and imperfection in the enviroment alone is probably more than we can fathom. It would be hard to fathom intelligence in man beyond ours because we only have what we have to think with.
Building the pyramids may not have been that big a deal to them......Noah built a pretty large boat that he was give the dimensions for but to my knowledge God did not give him blueprints.....he had to be a pretty smart guy himself.....
Funny you should mention "slip-cast" or, as we say in the biz, "slip-form."
Not two weeks ago I was pumping concrete at the new Holnam Cement plant near Harleyville, SC.
They are building some really BIG silos there. Slip forms--one continuous pour, no cold joints. No small task. A dedicated miniature concrete batch plant on site mixing concrete 24 hrs a day for weeks at a time.
Kinda cool, but the mining aspect of the operation is not pretty.
Yeah, the Egyptians formed the blocks of the pyramids in situ, similar to what was done on Easter Island. And how did those Incas REALLY get their stones to fit so perfectly?
Whatever they did with granite, it works better than concrete, which is much weaker than most folks suppose. If I had the patent...
Funny you should mention "slip-cast" or, as we say in the biz, "slip-form."
Not two weeks ago I was pumping concrete at the new Holnam Cement plant near Harleyville, SC.
They are building some really BIG silos there. Slip forms--one continuous pour, no cold joints. No small task. A dedicated miniature concrete batch plant on site mixing concrete 24 hrs a day for weeks at a time.
Kinda cool, but the mining aspect of the operation is not pretty.
Yeah, the Egyptians formed the blocks of the pyramids in situ, similar to what was done on Easter Island. And how did those Incas REALLY get their stones to fit so perfectly?
Whatever they did with granite, it works better than concrete, which is much weaker than most folks suppose. If I had the patent...
However, this "we only use 10% of our brain capacity" thing is bunk. How that was figured was on total possible nerve firings. As if there would EVER be a reason for anyone's brain to fire all nerves simultaneously, much less do it 100% of the time. It's silly on its face.
What we lost at the fall was not quantitative brain capacity, but wisdom. God's wisdom. Ironically, we never know that we're lacking wisdom. We all think we're wise. Don't you?
But without the wisdom of God, we think we're wise, all the while being foolish. You'll notice this on both sides of the evolution/creation threads here and elsewhere.
1. I wasn't directing the statements with "bunk" and "silly" at you personally. I've heard this line of debate before and I was directing it at the originators of it, not at you.
2. I over-simplified by referring to nerves firing. I was referring to all brain activity, of course.
I agree with your notions about moving the blocks to the site. But how did they raise them into place? The old idea of a ramp doesn't make sense: I did the calculations once and a ramp would require as much or more material as the pyramid itself, depending on how it was built. I've seen data somewhere about the time required to build the structures. They know how long the workmen were there and if I recall correctly they would have to have put a block in place every 15 minutes or so to get the job done in the time available. I'd love to know the real answers but I doubt they'll be known in my lifetime.
Just for the record, I first read speculation about the blocks being cast in place back in the 1950s. I've never seen anything I consider scientific one way or the other about whether it's true or even possible. That doesn't mean something hasn't been published -- I just haven't seen it although I try to keep up with this stuff. There was also another article I recall that purported to provide evidence of power-driven machinery used in the pyramids' stonemasonry. I'm going to do another search for it -- I'd like to refresh my memory about it.
I agree the ancients weren't dumb -- far from it! But I cut stones for a living (the kind you wear on your person) and I think I know a little about the subject after 40 years. If the material was indeed quartzite it was in all probability natural. I've seen numerous examples of Egyptian glyptic work in hard materials like jasper and other quartz family minerals. There's no doubt in my mind they were carved tediously by hand or with simple muscle-powered machines, using harder stones like corundum sands or even diamonds as abrasives. (Diamonds from the Golconda region of India made their way to the Mediterranean via the Silk Road and its unchronicled predecessor routes. The Romans even had a trade in diamond-tipped tools used in drilling and engraving, but I believe they were available much earlier in Egypt). I doubt the secrets of laboratory hydrothermal quartz deposition were known to anyone at that time, nor can I imagine how a quartzite vase could be "cast."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.