>>9903484

(Please read from the start)

>> Of course Hawass welcomes the Merer’s diary because it is used as proof to confirm the big pyramid in Giza was built by Khufu. But if anons, read carefully, in this journal, it is not said or confirmed the blocks were used to BUILD the pyramid. See how main stream narrative twist things. So if it was not used to build the big pyramid, what was it used for? I was suspecting the Temple Complex was built later on, as in added during the reign of Khufu, but it seems I’m wrong. Which pushes me to look for other structures on the site which were probably added during the dynastic time.

Remember Mr. Reader from page 158? He noticed a difference between the degrees of the erosion on different parts of the complex. Now link this with the information from Journal of Merer = the possibility is very high that parts of the complex at the feet of the pyramid was added during the reign of Khufu. So the stones used to build that section of the complex were transported as mentioned in the journal. But this also implies the Sphinx was built at a prior date which in turn wrecks the narrative put forward by the main stream history about the big cat being built by Khafre. So again, which parts were added? Could it be what we call as being the Queen’s pyramid? Or was it something else? I’m still scratching my head about this anons? I’m still turning it in my head and trying to see all the angles.

How I interpret this: The pyramids of Giza along with the Sphinx were built on a much older date and not by Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. When those Pharaohs reigned, they added each something on the plateau, like Khafre, re-carved the head of the Sphinx according to his own features.

Now let’s see how the pyramids were supposedly built, according to main stream history narrative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

“Egyptian pyramid construction techniques are the controversial subject of many hypotheses. These techniques seem to have developed over time; later pyramids were not constructed in the same way as earlier ones. Most of the construction hypotheses are based on the belief that huge stones were carved from quarries with copper chisels, and these blocks were then dragged and lifted into position. Disagreements chiefly concern the methods used to move and place the stones.

In addition to the many unresolved arguments about the construction techniques, there have been disagreements as to the kind of workforce used. The Greeks, many years after the event, believed that the pyramids must have been built by slave labor. Archaeologists now believe that the Great Pyramid of Giza (at least) was built by tens of thousands of skilled workers who camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of tax payment (levy) until the construction was completed, pointing to workers' cemeteries discovered in 1990 by archaeologists Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner. For the Middle Kingdom Pyramid of Amenemhat II, there is evidence from the annal stone of the king that foreigners from Canaan were used.

Pseudoscientific theories have proliferated in the vacuum of official construction explanations.”

>> Hawass is such an incredible archaeologist isn’t he anons? He is always “there” in the middle of the most critical subjects. See how a gatekeeper works?

I’m always amazed how (((they))) are simply unable to say the word “Phoenician”….(((they))) rather use Canaan or Syrians than the word Phoenician. So let me get this straight, it is hinted that the Phoenicians had something to do with the building of the big pyramid in Giza? Is that it? Did I read this right?

• Page 170 –

>>9914245

(Please read from the start)

“Historical hypotheses

Third through Fifth Dynasties

During the earliest period, pyramids were constructed wholly of stone. Locally quarried limestone was the material of choice for the main body of these pyramids, while a higher quality of limestone quarried at Tura (near modern Cairo) was used for the outer casing. Granite, quarried near Aswan, was used to construct some architectural elements, including the portcullis (a type of gate) and the roofs and walls of the burial chamber. Occasionally, granite was used in the outer casing as well, such as in the Pyramid of Menkaure. In the early pyramids, the layers of stone (called courses) forming the pyramid body were laid sloping inwards; however, this configuration was found to be less stable than simply stacking the stones horizontally on top of each other. The Bent Pyramid at Dahshur seems to indicate acceptance of a new technique at a transition between these two building techniques. Its lower section is built of sloping courses while in its upper section the stones are laid horizontally.

Middle Kingdom and onward

During the Middle Kingdom, pyramid construction techniques changed again. Most pyramids built then were little more than mountains of mud-brick encased in a veneer of polished limestone. In several cases, later pyramids were built on top of natural hills to further reduce the volume of material needed in their construction. The materials and methods of construction used in the earliest pyramids have ensured their survival in a generally much better state of preservation than for the pyramid monuments of the later pharaohs.”

>> Things don’t match up here anons: See as we advance in time (= history), civilizations (theoretically) should advance as well, including their building techniques and material usage. But in this case, it’s like we are going backwards. They started building supposedly the BIG pyramids with quite big stones, when building technology was still primitive, supposedly. But with later dynasties, when we assume the construction technology must have advanced and developed, they use “perishable”, not strong, materials. It’s like they are going backwards on this one. Unless there is a cataclysmic event, the level of advancement in a civilization goes forwards, not backwards.

This is why I interpret things in a different way: The stone to build the big pyramids were pre-dynastic, probably before the Flood. While the “softer” material pyramids, smaller in size, were built during the dynastic era = the descendants of the survivors of the Flood trying to imitate the monuments found of an ancient civilization. Can you imagine how it must have felt like to be a third or 4th generation Flood survivor descendant and walk into the Giza plateau and find the pyramids and the Sphinx?

Anons can research and make up their own minds.

“Construction method hypotheses

Building the pyramids from quarried stone blocks

One of the major problems faced by the early pyramid builders was the need to move huge quantities of stone. The Twelfth Dynasty tomb of Djehutihotep has an illustration of 172 men pulling an alabaster statue of him on a sledge. The statue is estimated to weigh 60 tons and Denys Stocks estimated that 45 workers would be required to start moving a 16,300 kg (35,900 lb; 16.3 t) lubricated block, or eight workers to move a 2,750 kg (6,060 lb; 2.75 t) block.[2] Dr. R H G Parry[3] has suggested a method for rolling the stones, using a cradle-like machine that had been excavated in various new kingdom temples. Four of those objects could be fitted around a block so it could be rolled easily. Experiments done by the Obayashi Corporation, with concrete blocks 0.8 metres (2 ft 7 in) square by 1.6 metres (5 ft 3 in) long and weighing 2.5 tonnes (2,500 kg; 5,500 lb), showed how 18 men could drag the block over a 1-in-4 incline ramp, at a rate of 18 metres per minute (1 ft/s). This idea was previously described by John Bush in 1977,[4] and is mentioned in the Closing Remarks section of Parry's book. Vitruvius in De architectura[5] described a similar method for moving irregular weights. It is still not known whether the Egyptians used this method but the experiments indicate it could have worked using stones of this size. Egyptologists generally accept this for the 2.5 ton blocks mostly used but do not agree over the methods used for the 15+ ton and several 70 to 80 ton blocks.”

• Page 171 –