>>9914273

(Please read from the start)

>> What was the world population back then anons? How many millions?

Oh yeah! We’ve seen this in page 53: so world population was estimated to be around 27 million and Mesopotamia’s population is estimated between 0.8 to 1.5 million. So I’m going to do take this number and apply to Egypt as in estimating the population of ancient Egypt to be around 1.5 million. Since half of the population is female, I’m going to cut that number in 2 to get the number of men = 750 000 (I’m being generous with the numbers anons). In these 750 000 we have elderly and children males, so we gotta deduct that number. We need to add the people with physical disabilities as well in that number, because they cannot provide hard labor. So how many healthy adult men are left to provide labor? But it doesn’t end here, we’ve got the nobles whom don’t work and we’ve got the army that was used for defense and order so those numbers should be deducted as well. Now, we gotta also deduct the religious people = the priesthood, the scribes as well as the merchants, traders, artisans, servants, sailors and fishermen. Also we need people to cook for such large number of workers and we need an even larger number of people to cultivate the fields to feed them. But anons are also forgetting something: the quarries = they needed thousands of workers there. Others were needed to transport the stones from the quarries onto the boats. Others were needed to navigate the boats carrying the stones. So how many are left on the construction site itself? = not that much anons.

If it took a172 men to manage one alabaster statue of 60 tones, how many did it take to move everything on the construction site? Can you imagine the labor it took? Vitruvius is generally correct in the information he provides. He never failed me. But we cannot judge the techniques used when Vitruvius was around during the time the pyramids were supposedly constructed. There is a big chronological gap between the 2 and insinuating building technology and techniques froze that long without any modification or improvement is totally ridiculous. The biggest hurdle to this theory is written in the following paragraph: where the timber came from?

“As the stones forming the core of the pyramids were roughly cut, especially in the Great Pyramid, the material used to fill the gaps was another problem. Huge quantities of gypsum and rubble were needed.[6][7] The filling has almost no binding properties, but it was necessary to stabilize the construction. To make the gypsum mortar, it had to be dehydrated by heating which requires large quantities of wood. According to Egyptologists, the findings of both the 1984 and 1995 David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Projects[8][9] may suggest that Egypt had to strip its forest and scrap every bit of wood it had to build the pyramids of Giza and other even earlier 4th Dynasty pyramids. Carbon dating samples from core blocks and other materials revealed that dates from the 1984 study averaged 374 years earlier than currently accepted and the 1995 dating averaging 100–200 years. As suggested by team members, "We thought that it was unlikely that the pyramid builders consistently used centuries-old wood as fuel in preparing mortar. The 1984 results left us with too little data to conclude that the historical chronology of the Old Kingdom was wrong by nearly 400 years, but we considered this at least a possibility". To explain this discrepancy, Egyptologists proposed the "old wood" theory claiming the earlier dates were possibly derived from recycling large amounts of centuries old wood and other earlier materials.”

>> So carbon dating clearly shows the Great pyramids of Giza were build prior to Khufu’s reign. A few hundred years prior than the given date by main stream history, but since it doesn’t fit with the narrative (((they))) want us to believe, this important piece of information is swept under the rogue. Nothing to see here anons, just carry on.

• Page 172 –

>>9926635

(Please read from the start)

Carbon dating doesn’t come close to explaining where this HUGE amount of wood came from? They need wood for the boats, the quarries, to lodging, to cook and to make the mortar = the amount of wood needed was astronomical and we are not mentioning the wood used by the citizens and nobles for furniture and other stuff. (((They))) are telling us that large numbers of wood were cut in Egypt but didn’t (((they))) also say that Egypt was a desert back then? If Egypt was covered with tropical forests, then I would understand easily where all this wood comes from, but as seen with the Sphinx, the entire plateau was underwater for some time, then when the water receded, Egypt was a desert. So if the wood really came from Ancient Egypt, it must have come from a time prior the Flood. But I honestly don’t understand how can that HUGE number of trees survive underwater?

This is pure abracadabra anons. So we gotta look for other possible sources. I can think of only 2: Phoenicia = the cedar tree – or Tropical Africa. We know both regions traded with Ancient Egypt ever since pre-dynastic times, but could they have provided that huge quantity of wood needed for the construction of the pyramids? I know the cedar is a strong “noble” wood, but can it withstand all of that weight? Well, it seems so. Was there another type of wood used apart the cedar? Why can’t we find any fragments of cedar wood used for construction? We know cedar wood can last for many centuries, as proven by the royal boats found buried adjacent to the pyramid in Giza. They were made by Phoenician cedar wood and buried for many centuries there, still incredibly in good shape for such wooden objects. And cedar wood was too precious, too valuable to be used in such way. I really doubt they used it for construction like this. So did this huge quantity of wood came from Inner Africa? If so, why can’t we find any records or fragments?

We are not told what type of trees was used = just some old logs. Really?! Can that withstand the weight and the friction? I really doubt it. I’m no wood expert but once you see the enormity of some blocks, mostly the monoliths, you will understand why I’m talking this way. And to make it mind boggling, it’s impossible to explain how the big blocks were elevated to that height, in some cases, not all.

“There is good information concerning the location of the quarries, some of the tools used to cut stone in the quarries, transportation of the stone to the monument, leveling the foundation, and leveling the subsequent tiers of the developing superstructure. Workmen probably used copper chisels, drills, and saws to cut softer stone, such as most of the limestone. The harder stones, such as granite, granodiorite, syenite, and basalt, cannot be cut with copper tools alone; instead, they were worked with time-consuming methods like pounding with dolerite, drilling, and sawing with the aid of an abrasive, such as quartz sand. Blocks were transported by sledge likely lubricated by water. Leveling the foundation may have been accomplished by use of water-filled trenches as suggested by Mark Lehner and I.E.S. Edwards or through the use of a crude square level and experienced surveyors.

The diary of Merer, logbooks written more than 4,500 years ago by an Egyptian official and found in 2013 by a French archeology team under the direction of Pierre Tallet in a cave in Wadi al-Jarf, describes the transportation of limestone from the quarry in Tora to Giza.”

>> See what I was talking about with the quarries? Just how many workers were needed there to extract the stones, cut them to the required dimensions and transport then load them onto the boats? Just the scale of it all is simply HUGE. Ancient Egyptian worker must have been in excellent body shape and in great health to be able to perform this good and this fast with heavy labor work. Anons, for me, things don’t make sense, it doesn’t fit well. Yes, maybe this can be made for smaller structures, like the smaller pyramids, but I’ve always had a hard time accepting this theory for the Big Pyramids of Giza. If this was easy work, slaves wouldn’t have been used for such tasks. Everyone would have volunteered for it. This type of work is exhausting at least. So I’m saying it again: maybe this method of construction was used by later periods (= Middle Kingdome, New Kingdom) but certainly not in the Old Kingdome and the pre-dynastic era. Anyone with a pair of eyes and a bit of common sense can see this is fantasy story we are being fed.

• Page 173 –

>>9926763

(Please read from the start)

“Writings of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus

The unknowns of pyramid construction chiefly center on the question of how the blocks were moved up the superstructure. There is no known accurate historical or archaeological evidence that definitively resolves the question. Therefore, most discussion on construction methods involves functional possibilities that are supported by limited historical and archaeological evidence.”

>> Please anons, notice the choice of words. In the end, no one knows how the pyramids were built. All we have are theories. So don’t believe rock solid in the explanation given to us by main stream history. See in the section above how Hawass present the Journal of Merer as being absolute proof of how the pyramid was constructed by Khufu, but the truth is, that journal only talks about how the stones were transported from the quarry to the construction site. And again, this doesn’t mean these stones quarried under Khufu were used to build the pyramid, they might have been used to build something else on the site; and I’m leaning towards this.

“Historical accounts for the construction of the Egyptian pyramids do little to point definitively to methods to lift the blocks; yet most Egyptologists refer to these accounts when discussing this portion of pyramid construction. Thales, according to the philosopher Hieronymus (3rd century BC)[19] visited the Egyptian pyramids during the 7th century BC and by using the intercept theorem, also known as Thales's theorem, measured their height and thus their volume. The first historical accounts of the construction of these monuments came centuries after the era of pyramid construction, by Herodotus in the 5th century BC and Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. Herodotus's account states:

This pyramid was made like stairs, which some call steps and others, tiers. When this, its first form, was completed, the workmen used short wooden logs as levers to raise the rest of the stones; they heaved up the blocks from the ground onto the first tier of steps; when the stone had been raised, it was set on another lever that stood on the first tier, and the lever again used to lift it from this tier to the next. It may be that there was a new lever on each tier of steps, or perhaps there was only one lever, quite portable, which they carried up to each tier in turn; I leave this uncertain, as both possibilities were mentioned. But this is certain, that the upper part of the pyramid was finished off first, then the next below it, and last of all the base and the lowest part.”

>> Herodotus himself is admitting it’s not certain how the stones were lifted up to build the pyramid. He is making an assumption or a suggestion. But what is striking about his words is that the top of the pyramid was built/ finished first. Interesting isn’t it anons? So this means the gold was put on top first and all the workers labored there, some even died, while looking every day to that shiny metal.

“Diodorus Siculus's account states:

And it's said the stone was transported a great distance from Arabia, and that the edifices were raised by means of earthen ramps, since machines for lifting had not yet been invented in those days; and most surprising it is, that although such large structures were raised in an area surrounded by sand, no trace remains of either ramps or the dressing of the stones, so that it seems not the result of the patient labor of men, but rather as if the whole complex were set down entire upon the surrounding sand by some god. Now Egyptians try to make a marvel of these things, alleging that the ramps were made of salt and natron and that, when the river was turned against them, it melted them clean away and obliterated their every trace without the use of human labor. But in truth, it most certainly was not done this way! Rather, the same multitude of workmen who raised the mounds returned the entire mass again to its original place; for they say that three hundred and sixty thousand men were constantly employed in the prosecution of their work, yet the entire edifice was hardly finished at the end of twenty years.

Diodorus Siculus's description of the shipment of the stone from Arabia is correct since the term "Arabia" those days implied the land between the Nile and the Red Sea[22] where the limestone blocks have been transported from quarries across the river Nile.”

• Page 174 –

>>9926787

(Please read from the start)

>> What Diodore of Siculus wrote doesn’t hold much ground, does it anons? Starting by the number of workers given to work DAILY on the site for 20 years, to barely finish the construction. And we know the entire male population in Egypt back then was around 750 000 so this makes half of the men in the kingdom doing nothing but labor construction work for 20 years. The other half of the men is supposedly composed of old men, the noble men, the clergy, the scribes, the soldiers, the merchants and the farmers. All of this and we are not even mentioning the number of men required to extract the stones from the quarries and transport them on the Nile.

Another thing about the ramp is it’s angle: it’s one thing to push forward a block of stone on a flat surface, but if I remember my physics lessons correctly, it needs more effort to pull it upwards on a ramp, even if they used wooden logs to make the stones slide on them in some way. And this explanation given about how the ramp came to be….if you think about it, the number of workers needed to simply built the ramp (if it is possible to do it in the first place) and not make it crumble. And where did they bring the material to build the ramp? What was it made of = simply sand? Did they use additional wood logs to support the sides of the ramp? So many uncertainties anons. No! This doesn’t hold up at all. And when he said the ramp is “washed” away by the Nile, really? What kind of wave must it have been to be able to “wash away” that HUGE ramp? How long and big was that ramp again? When you re-read him, it’s obvious, even he, while writing, wasn’t that convinced by the ramp theory. He also has a point when he says no traces of the ramp or the dressing stones were found. We ALWAYS have traces in archaeology, ALWAYS. If there are none, it means there was nothing there in the first place. This is why no traces ARE found about the first original temple of Solomon in Jerusalem: because it wasn’t there in the first place.

And then he drops this sentence: “but rather as if the whole complex were set down entire upon the surrounding sand by some god” = since he cannot explain it logically, and he, himself is not that convinced with the ramp theory….so he finally suggests that some “god” probably did this amazing work of construction. Just imagine how mind boggling it must have been anons for ancient people to see the pyramids and the Sphinx of Giza. It must have been quiet a site for them. No wonder they were considered one of the Seven Wonders of the World.

“Different kinds of ramps

Most Egyptologists acknowledge that ramps are the most tenable of the methods to raise the blocks, yet they acknowledge that it is an incomplete method that must be supplemented by another device. Archaeological evidence for the use of ramps has been found at the Great Pyramid of Giza[23] and other pyramids. The method most accepted for assisting ramps is levering[24] (Lehner 1997: 222). The archaeological record gives evidence of only small ramps and inclined causeways, not something that could have been used to construct even a majority of the monument. To add to the uncertainty, there is considerable evidence demonstrating that non-standardized or ad hoc construction methods were used in pyramid construction (Arnold 1991: 98,[25] Lehner 1997: 223).

>> Contradiction: one moment they are certain a ramp is used, the second, they are uncertain. It’s simply that there is no logical explanation how the pyramids were build, so this makes the Egyptologist feel like they have no choice but to accept the most childish explanation about it = the ramps, even though, they are not fully convinced about this theory. It’s like they are forced to put Lego cubes together even though they know they don’t fit with one another.

• Page 175 –