A unorthodox theory about ancient pyramids

Status
Closed

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,410
Coastal Florida
I was confused about what was in the first photo and had to delete a post based on it. I'll try again.



What's left of the min is in the bottom left of this photo.

I apologize for the confusion.
If you're going to just make stuff up, I'd suggest you get some kind of clue as to what you're talking about. The fact of the matter is that this structure is not the divided shaft you cited photographs for from this website:

What will be behind Gantenbrink's door? - Christopher Dunn

That divided shaft is part of the trial passages, which is over 80 meters away from the shaft you now say you're talking about. You also claimed this "min" has never been excavated when this shaft right beside the pyramid (what you're now claiming is the "min") has been excavated numerous times as well.

It means that funny angle is the causeway.
Well, I'm about done with this line of conversation so I'm not going to look up the diagrams...yet again...to show you. However, this drain is nowhere near a causeway. It runs under the south wall in the southeast corner of the Sphinx Temple.

You call my theories "elaborate"
No I didn't. I called them "elaborate fantasies."
 
Last edited:

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
If you're going to just make stuff up, I'd suggest you get some kind of clue as to what you're talking about. The fact of the matter is that this structure is not the divided shaft you cited photographs for from this website:

What will be behind Gantenbrink's door? - Christopher Dunn

That divided shaft is part of the trial passages, which is over 80 meters away from the shaft you now say you're talking about. You also claimed this "min" has never been excavated when this shaft right beside the pyramid (what you're now claiming is the "min") has been excavated numerous times as well.
Now, now, we all make mistakes. I believe you've made at least three of them here even if most of them were precipitated by my confusion.

I'm quite confident the picture from Dunn's site above are the min and are the hole immediately adjacent G1 on the east side. You can even see the see the divider from aerial photos in some cases. There is no such divider I've seen at the trial passages.

Do you have any information about this excavation or where to find the data? I have the data for the trial passages.

This is about the facts and not human failings and errors.


Well, I'm about done with this line of conversation so I'm not going to look up the diagrams...yet again...to show you. However, this drain is nowhere near a causeway. It runs under the south wall in the southeast corner of the Sphinx Temple.
I can refresh your memory. You never presented any evidence this isn't exactly what it appears to be and the author said it was. I've never seen any such accumulation around a horizontal pipe and I do have extensive experience in such matters. This is obviously coming up from below just as the author says. I don't understand why you'd even doubt such a thing.


No I didn't. I called them "elaborate fantasies."
Tomato/ tomatoe.
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,410
Coastal Florida
There is no such divider I've seen at the trial passages.
Except in the diagram I posted...look at the top of the vertical shaft...it appears to show a center divider with only a partial excavation on one side of it. That shaft is also ~5 meters deep...just like your source says.

Do you have any information about this excavation or where to find the data?
I can't access the dig reports. They aren't in the Giza library but, from the references I've found, they weren't written in english either (french & german). However, it's details are referenced in other works. I did find its dimensions: the opening is 5.3 meters X 4 meters and it's 13.25 meters deep...so, it's like 17+ feet X 13+ feet and 45+ feet deep. It's labeled as pozzo romano o tomba saita (coperto)...Google Translate tells me that means Roman well or Saite tomb (covered). Apparently, those are the leading theories for it. If I was a betting man, I'd bet on the Saite tomb...there are numerous very similar examples around Giza and at other necropolises. And I can't imagine why somebody would try to dig a water well or cistern right there.

I don't understand why you'd even doubt such a thing.
I don't know... Maybe I'm thinking more at a practical level...rather than at the level of supernatural ben ben stones.
 
Last edited:

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
Except in the diagram I posted...look at the top of the vertical shaft...it appears to show a center divider with only a partial excavation on one side of it. That shaft is also ~5 meters deep...just like your source says.
I still don't have an opinion on the usage of this structure. Here's a good picture from the south;





I can't access the dig reports. They aren't in the Giza library but, from the references I've found, they weren't written in english either (french & german). However, it's details are referenced in other works. I did find its dimensions: the opening is 5.3 meters X 4 meters and it's 13.25 meters deep...so, it's like 17+ feet X 13+ feet and 45+ feet deep. It's labeled as pozzo romano o tomba saita (coperto)...Google Translate tells me that means Roman well or Saite tomb (covered). Apparently, those are the leading theories for it. If I was a betting man, I'd bet on the Saite tomb...there are numerous very similar examples around Giza and at other necropolises. And I can't imagine why somebody would try to dig a water well or cistern right there.
These dimensions seem much larger than is evidenced. They could be correct. If they are then it works very well for the usage of a simpler system for bouyancy than I had pictured.

I don't know... Maybe I'm thinking more at a practical level...rather than at the level of supernatural ben ben stones.
For me seeing is believing. When I start doubting pictures then I might as well stop even using google and a computer for research. Of course pictures can be doctored or misinterpreted but there's no reason to beliueve this applies to a simple ben ben stone. This especially applies when the photographer implies the orientation and has no axe to grind. I'm the first person to doubt second hand knowledge and the last person to doubt my own eyes.
 
Feb 2011
833
Kitchener. Ont.
I thought the concept of moving the stones was addressed some years ago.
Petrie unearthed wooden segments that, when assembled around a finished stone, would permit it to be rolled.




 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
I thought the concept of moving the stones was addressed some years ago.
Petrie unearthed wooden segments that, when assembled around a finished stone, would permit it to be rolled.
The wooden segments are pretty flimsy for the large pyramid stones and have too small a diameter.

Really, the means to move the stones to the pyramids is not so much difficult as it is unknown. The real difficulty is getting them up on the pyramid and it's this means that isn't known. It is only known that stones were pushed (floated?) or pulled up 81' at a time. Ramps are debunked for lifting stones on the pyramid and they will probably be disproven as the means that was used to get them to the pyramid. Whatever got the stones from the quarry was probably similar to whatever got them to the pyramid top. It was all a single job.
 

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,905
Canada
Do you have a reference as to the roller components and reconstruction done by Petrie? There also has to be another thing looked at on this to. That is the stripping of G1,2, &3 to build mosques an palaces in the early Islamic period. Have carbon 14 tests been done one the material.
?
 
Jun 2016
1,567
Oregon
Do you have a reference as to the roller components and reconstruction done by Petrie? There also has to be another thing looked at on this to. That is the stripping of G1,2, &3 to build mosques an palaces in the early Islamic period. Have carbon 14 tests been done one the material.
?
C-14 testing on what the Tura limestone removed for building elsewhere or do you mean somewhere else?

The testing in the 80's and 90's was done on carbon found in the gypsum mortar used between the core stones.
 
Status
Closed