Were the pyramids built from the top down?

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#21
A lot of the theories simply ignore the difficulty of putting casing stone on the pyramid. This applies to the vast majority of the ramping theories especially. A pyramid with smooth sides won't support ramps and a spiral ramp can't be employed to place the stones on the way down.

Some people solve this problem by inventing two ramps with the first to build the pyramid and the second to clad it but any ramping system could easily involve more work than the pyramid itself. Any theory that gets rid of this problem requires that the entire pyramid be encased in massive ramps and then they couldn't see the pyramid to build it straight. The vertical lines visible in the pyramid prove it wasn't built with external spiral ramps of any nature whatsoever.

The real question is why do people believe in ramps at all. They are counterintuitive and counterevidenced. There are far easier means than ramps and some of these means are far better evidenced. The only argument for ramps boils down to "the pyramid exists therefore they used ramps". Yet very few people will even entertain a well evidenced means such as dragging stones up from the top. This also would explain how the casing got on but can not explain why the top tests older than the bottom.

The nature of the ladding stone precludes the possibility it was installed from the top down and it's impossible that the pyramid was built from the top down so the only possible explanation is sampling error.

This suggests more testing might be indicated but still we know it was sampling error. Sampling error is how we have come to believe these people were superstitious and obsessed by death and afterlife; most of what we know about them came from tombs.

The answers are there if we shed our superstitions, look at the actual evidence, and do the research that is indicated by the actual evidence.
 

Davidius

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
4,986
Pillium
#22
I have no knowledge of this.

It's not necessarily relevant to me personally what isn't being done.

I simply have no interest here since we aren't going to make any determination using any dating method.
What you are doing here is the antithesis of debate, any information that does not support your theory is simply dismissed, either that or you say you have no knowledge of it, as if your ignorance of the matter makes it irrelevant.
This is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going 'nah nah nah, I can't hear you' when someone replies to your comments. Hardly the standard required of a forum like this.
If you are going to bring dating methods to the table then you need to know what those methods are and what relevance they have to your argument, just pointing out their existence without understanding their relevance weakens your argument.
Unless you can bring yourself to actually debate the issues at hand, instead of just repeatedly re asserting your theories without addressing the points I make, meaningful discourse is not possible and I will save my efforts for those who know how to discuss an issue properly.

I suppose if you had timbers of sufficient lenght you would have more options but you can't simply put lumber together into tall structures.
Utterly ridiculous!:confused:

The world is full of tall wooden structures, here is one:
Gangster who built world's tallest log cabin - Telegraph
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#23
What you are doing here is the antithesis of debate, any information that does not support your theory is simply dismissed, either that or you say you have no knowledge of it, as if your ignorance of the matter makes it irrelevant.
Unless someone has evidence from some other dating method this is simply irrelevant. I merely made an off-hand comment that there were other methods of dating things. Specifically; "There are various dating methods that can be employed but people seem content to just imagine there were ramps and speculate on the implications of the assumptions. There's a great deal of science not getting done." The fact they aren't being done and the fact further C14 dating isn't being done supports my statements. I am not responsible to answer all the questions of the world and to not have any typos in the process.

All my points stand and this is all I care about. The point of the thread is that the top of G1 is older than the bottom and I have addressed this in detail. To synopsize, it's an impossibility so is therefore sampling error. To suggest new or additional sampling is just common sense.

Unless you can bring yourself to actually debate the issues at hand, instead of just repeatedly re asserting your theories without addressing the points I make, meaningful discourse is not possible and I will save my efforts for those who know how to discuss an issue properly.
If you have a point you believe I'm not addressing please state it in plain English. If I don't respond it's because I don't care about the point or I agree with it. You'll know if I don't agree and it's something I care about.

The only issues at hand are the facts and these facts are improperly arranged and interpreted by orthodox thinking. Orthodoxy suggests the answer to this is "old wood" but this is an absurdity. The fact that wood is scarce in a place makes it less likely for old wood to be around rather than more likely. There are no warehouses of old wood and if there had been they would have washed away in a flood or burned down long before the wood was 1000 years old.

I'm merely expressing common sense observations and looking at the actual evidence left by the Egyptians in a new light. I believe this light is the proper way to see the ancients and am willing to debate ANY relevant point in the appropriate thread.

Utterly ridiculous.
So you're suggesting, what, that there's no limit to the size one can build with any material?

The world is full of tall wooden structures, here is one:
Gangster who built world's tallest log cabin - Telegraph
So exactly how to we know there isn't a steel support beam in the middle of this thing?

This was only relevant because it was suggested that the pyramid needed extensive repair. If this isn't true then this whole line of discussion really is irrelevant. It is very unlikely that extensive repairs were made to the exterior of G1 and that they ever had a scaffold or a ramp leaned up against them.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2011
1,367
Florida
#24
Moving heavy weights even alone is not necessarily difficult.

Lifting 6 1/2 million tons to an average of 120' might not even be possible for humans.
I don't know how difficult it would be but I find it amazing that one man working alone could construct such a thing as Coral Castle in one location, move it to another location and begin again. It boggles my mind how Leedskalin was able to accomplish this incredible feat of engineering.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,813
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#27
A pyramid is made by blocks. To made it up bottom excavating an enormous mountain of sand [they had to carry a mountain of sand to do this at Giza!], you should find a way to put a new layer of blocks under an other while you remove the sand. How can you do that?

Once you remove the sand under the blocks the blocks fall ...

The process up bottom has been used for real in history to realize big constructions: for example the stone churches in Ethiopia from Middle Ages. But to think to this kind of process for the Egyptian pyramids is not that rational.
 
Likes: Todd Feinman
Oct 2013
6,390
Planet Nine, Oregon
#28
That seems like an awful lot of material; though they made temples that way, it's hard to imagine a whole pyramid constructed that way.. Perhaps Nubian pyramids.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,412
Las Vegas, NV USA
#29
So to build from the top down you make the cap first, then lift it up and build the next level and so on. That's called the "heavy lifting" theory. Or dig a hole under the cap and build the next level under it and so on, digging and deeper. When finished, all the sand around the hole is carried away. That's called the "deep dig and carry" theory. Somehow I can't make up my mind which is better although the heavy lifting theory could use levitation which everyone knows the ancient Egyptians got from aliens.:upsidedown:
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions