A unorthodox theory about ancient pyramids

Status
Closed

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,905
Canada
The wood material found by Petrie that he tried this method with. Was it C14 tested? Also could this wood be left from the stone robbing?
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
5,143
Australia
Thank you for your patience, dreamregent. Some of us here appreciate your efforts in debunkng this nonsense.
 
Jun 2016
1,567
Oregon
The wood material found by Petrie that he tried this method with. Was it C14 tested? Also could this wood be left from the stone robbing?

Don't know I suspect not I've never heard of it being C-14's nor am I sure where it might be. Will ask.
 

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,905
Canada
So far the only goodly amount of wood found on site is from the boat pits. If anything the wheel method you found sound like later technology from the stone robbing periods.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2016
1,567
Oregon
So far the only goodly amount of wood found on site is from the boat pits. If anything the wheel method you found sound like later technology from the stone robbing periods.
Yes but one piece of wood was found recently in the pyramids (well 1990's) and another in the 1940's

The north shaft yielded a granite ball and a portion of cedar-like wood. They became known as the Dixon Relics. Both sets of artifacts lay amongst rubble at the bottom of the sloping shaft. The relics were taken to England, recorded by astronomer Royal Scotland, and returned to Dixon – after which they disappeared. Report of the discovery of the relics was made in “Nature” December 26, 1872, including a drawing of the items. In 1993 a search led to the discovery of the ball and hook in the British Museum, where they still are today. The piece of cedar-like wood remained missing until 2001, when it was traced at the Marischal Museum, Aberdeen. Although they are sure it is in their collection, they haven’t yet located it as they are in the process of moving.



Gantenbrink’s exploration of the shaft in 1993 revealed a long piece of wood lying in the sloping portion of the shaft. Its cross-sectional area and general appearance were similar to the piece of wood found by Dixon. It is possible that the short piece of wood reported by Dixon simply broke from the larger piece. A modern metal pole found alongside the piece of wood supports this theory. No mention of the pole is made in Dixon’s reports, but it is now thought to have been lost when Dixon and his colleagues were “treasure-hunting” in the shaft. They probably broke the small piece of wood from the longer piece while they were manipulating the metal pole, but did not report it.



Some suggest that carbon dating the wood would allow accurate dating of the Pyramid because wood must have been left in the shaft when the Pyramid was constructed (given that the shaft was sealed) but I contend that this is not absolute. Wood may been placed in the shaft after construction via the shaft’s exit, if one exists.
another small piece of wood was found in G2 right after WW2
 
Dec 2019
3
San Francisco
I have long held the belief that the pyramids were actually the site of a polar region. The blocks were moved via glacier,
 
Jun 2016
1,567
Oregon
Okay.....and what evidence do you have to back up such an interesting claim? Oh and which pyramids are you referring too?
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,986
Dispargum
Welcome to Historum, James Reem. We have a policy against resurrecting threads that have been inactive more than two years. Most Historum members don't stay active very long, and it's unlikely the person you're addressing will ever see your post. It's surprising that Hanslune has already responded, but since he has, I'm not going to close this one. In the future, please start a new thread rather than resurrect an old one.
 
Status
Closed