FRENCH ARCHITECT SOLVES MYSTERY OF HOW THE GREAT PYRAMID WAS ...

The Great Pyramid has fascinated me almost all of my life, as most people here know, and I have proposed a radical speculation as to its purpose. But one of the most puzzling features of the structure has always been how it was built. There have always been two chief theories in the Egyptological grab bag of explanations, and both are more or less variants on the ramp theory. One version has the Egyptians building a huge straight ramp, and hauling the massive stone blocks up the ramp on log rollers using thousands of slaves and presumably heavy labor animals. The other version has the Pyramid being built in a spiral, using a spiral ramp. And all this was achieved using simple tools - saws and slurry and a variety of other wonders that delight television producers - and massive amounts of labor and time. The result of all of this, we now know, was a building so perfectly aligned and constructed with an optical precision that ...well, we'll get back to that.

Now, while you're still holding your sides and trying to recover from the laughter, we have to point out the other "theories," which run the gamut from extraterrestrials using antigravity, to the Nephilim/Annunaki using their godlike powers and advanced knowledge, to the Hebrews using divinely revealed truth to encode (modern interpretations of) biblical prophecy. And while you're still laughing, remember, too, that some ancient traditions actually have it that the priests used sound to levitate the massive blocks into position. Finally, we have another novel theory, namely, that the blocks were literally poured into forms like concrete.

Now this one comes to me courtesy of a regular reader of this site, Mr. A.D. (no pun intended folks), who sent this intriguing video:

Now, the idea of spiraling and building from the inside out is, of course, from one point of view, the only method that makes sense. the use of counterweights, too, is sensible....

...but only if we are dealing with an Egyptian structure (which, of course, I still think we are not). Let's assume that we are, for the sake of argument.

I am no engineer, but I would think that building the structure in the fashion suggested would only increase the margin of error, making the actually achieved alignments of the structure next to impossible. Even if it was achieved, the dimensions of the structure, its embedding and encoding of exact geodetic knowledge, remain to be explained: whence did the Egyptians derive this knowledge? And why was it necessary to encode into a structure that supposedly was a tomb for a pharaoh with - to say the least - the world's biggest mausoleum complex?

The theory, notably, does not mention Sir Flinders Petrie's observations that the "sarcophagus" appears to have been drilled, and of course, ignores Christopher Dunn's observations that it may have been ultrasonically drilled. In short, it's another ingenious theory, folks, that in the end, does not make much sense and raises as many questions as it purports to solve. And that just leaves us all as mystified as we were before.

See you on the flip side.

31 thoughts on “ FRENCH ARCHITECT SOLVES MYSTERY OF HOW THE GREAT PYRAMID WAS ...”

  1. This Haudin theory has been around for years, nothing new.
    Why even take this video seriously when they say that the pyramid was built to be the tomb for a dead pharao? Loses all credibility right there and then. I agree with an earlier comment, this theory is only too convenient for the mainstream Egyptologists, it keeps their tomb, ramp & chisel fantasy alive.
    Those Egyptologists probably only give this credence because it is a nice fall-back position for them, since the “straight-ramp” theory lunacy that is still being taught today is finally becoming unravelled. I read an engineers report that said if a straight ramp was used, it would have had to be several kilometers long. It would have been a larger construction project than the pyramid itself!
    Occam’s Razor applies here I think, the simplest solution is probably the correct one. And geo-polymers seem to fit that bill, at least for most of the components. Levitation techniques are very likely too (think Leedskalnin for starters…).
    Read the work of British/Australian researcher Colin C McMullen recently. He covers all of this stuff in his hypothesis that the Great Pyramid (and all other pyramids around the world for that matter) were used as launch platforms for small terrestrial and space craft. The “true” pyramids used solar power while the “stepped” pyramids and later temples used microwaves.
    Think of the Teotihuacan pyramids in Mexico, McMullen calls it “the most advanced space port this planet has ever seen”. Perfect use for all that mica, to insulate those microwaves that were guided through the tunnels underneath the “Avenue of the Dead”. Appropriate name, is it not? Mica-failure and you would be fried to a crisp…
    He does not mention levitation, instead proposes that the entire construction was done using geo-polymers. He goes into extensive detail how it was done. If Occam’s Razor ever applied, this would be it.
    Then again, also read Dr Farrell’s Giza Death Star trilogy recently, and this work is just as compelling, if not more so. Perhaps (as Dr Farrell himself mentions), the Giza pyramid was converted at some stage, perhaps from launch platform to weapon?

    McMullen’s work Solar Power & Pyramids can be read on-line, at how2harnesshurricanes.com/pyramids/solarpandp/indexSPP.html
    The only thing in my opinion where McMullen is likely wrong is with his Great Pyramid building timeline. I agree with Dr Farrell that the Great Pyramid is of far greater antiquity than what McMullen proposes.

    The riddle continues…

    1. Or, was the Great Pyramid converted from a weapon to a launch platform?
      After the pyramid had been stripped of its components to function as a weapon as proposed by Dr Farrell, was it hen (much later) converted into use as a launch platform using solar energy as proposed by McMullen?

      Food for thought…

  2. New Zealand’s Pompei…

    Actually, there was once considered to be an “eighth” wonder of the world known as The Pink and White Terraces, situated in the proximity of what is today known as The Buried Village, “buried” in reference to the destructive force of the seventeen mile rift that erupted in 1886, therein destroying the Pink Terraces & burying the village of Te Wairoa along with over 150 of its inhabitants while they slept at 3:00 am, June 10th, 1886.

    See…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_and_White_Terraces
    http://www.virtualoceania.net/newzealand/photos/volcanic/terraces/
    http://www.rotoruamuseum.co.nz/things-to-see-and-do/nga-pumanawa-o-te-arawa/tarawera-te-maunga-tapu/the-pink-white-terraces/
    http://www.buriedvillage.co.nz/pink_and_white_terraces/p/49

    In 1981, I spend several weeks touring the region, including The Buried Village. The water in a small Lake I believe was named Okareka, was then crystal clear and excellent for drinking. Even the ducks were friendly.

    1. Hey Elm, funny you should mention this. Bit off topic, but hey…
      The geo-thermal area around Rotorua is one of my favourite places in Aotearoa.
      The Pink & White Terraces drew toursts from around the world, even back then.
      The White Terrace painting by Charles Blomfeld is the background image on my desktop, has been for years.
      It was an amazing place, actually still is.
      If you ever come back to NZ, do the walk in Waimangu Valley, just south of Rotorua. Takes you right to the edge of lake Rotomohana where The Terraces once existed.
      Geologysts using sonar claim to have found remnants of the White Terrace, about 20-30mtrs under water.
      The only place coming close to what The Terraces looked like is in Turkey, a place called Pamukkale.

      1. It would be nice to make a return visit to New Zealand. If this should occur, I’ll take your advice. Thank you. Also loved the South Island. Not so sure about the NZ political currents today though. Maybe I’ll download Blomfeld’s painting for my own desktop. Be well.

        1. “Not so sure about the NZ political currents today though”.

          Couldn’t agree more.
          John Key, ex Merryll Lynch bankster known as “The Smiling Assassin”.
          He’s been doing a bit of that recently, it’s called Asset Sales.
          He was (apparently) directly involved with the development of the derivatives market whilst at Merryll Lynch.
          A couple of years ago he proposed to turn NZ into a “Pacific Financial Hub”.
          Exactly what the once great USA has now become (and more) with Wall Street…say no more…

  3. Davidovits has the most rational, plausible and verifiable position on the construction of the Pyramids, geopolymer construction. Basically stone cement rammed into molds.

    The stones are bottom heavy, lighter at the top.
    Shell sediments are not in stratas but ‘mixed’ up.
    There are bubbles of air in the bricks.
    There are no lime off cuts which should be 5 times the volume of the actual pyramid.

    Add the fact that the Eqyptian antiquities department will not give him permission to examine the granite in the Kings chamber gives food for thought.

    Interestingly later additions to worn limestone are actually cut limestone which means the technique became lost (after the deluge?).

    Certainly makes Anatoly Formenko’s work look more plausible.

      1. This was an interesting comment in reply to Margaret Morris’ poor effort at ‘reviewing’ (rebutting) Dun’s book on Amazon:

        “Stephen M. Garcia says:
        @Timea Peterfia – Agreed, 100%. Even if poured geopolymers, the MOLD for the granite boxes would have to be made to high tolerances, both flatness and angular. I am an engineer, and our standard for producing a piece part with +/-.001” tolerance is to have the mechanism or mold producing that to have TEN TIMES the precision of that finished product. Thus, the mold would have had to be ten times more precise than the granite boxes. Okay: How do the geopolymer people think those molds were made so precise?

        In addition, when molding, the shrinkage factor is of monumental importance. And that shrinkage varies with thickness, length and width – in all three dimensions. In corners the total mass of the material that is shrinking is affected by shrinkage more than the material, say, half way up the box wall or in the middle of the bottom of the box. What happens in thicker areas, then, is what are known as “sink marks” – dimpled areas. For these corner areas to be ALSO within the very close flatness and squareness tolerances means they would have had to precisely calculate and then create machined “blends” in the molds to compensate for the shrinkage sink marks.

        So, the geopolymer theory still requires some extremely precise surface control of SOMETHING, even if it is not the finished stone. Today such precision can only be achieved by machining. Not only that, machining either stone OR molds on that level of precision has only been possible for a few decades. But to produce molds that also allow for the sink marks has only been possible since the advent of computerized numerically controlled (CNC) machines in the last 25 years.

        In addition, the granite boxes were clearly produced IN the subterranean rooms in which they are currently found. They are simply too large to have been made elsewhere and then moved into place. Therefore, the geopolymer approach demands that we believe that the molds were brought into the chambers and poured in situ.

        But the real proof is for the geopolymer people to produce GRANITE and DIORITE with their methods. Since these are igneous rocks, with many component minerals:

        Chemical composition

        From Wikipedia: A worldwide average of the chemical composition of granite, by weight percent:[4]
        * SiO2 – 72.04%
        * Al2O3 – 14.42%
        * K2O – 4.12%
        * Na2O – 3.69%
        * CaO – 1.82%
        * FeO – 1.68%
        * Fe2O3 – 1.22%
        * MgO – 0.71%
        * TiO2 – 0.30%
        * P2O5 – 0.12%
        * MnO – 0.05%

        And they want us to accept that the Egyptian geeopolymer technicians intentionally – with stone age tools – both analyzed and then copied the composition of natural granite. Right down to the Titanium oxide and the Aluminum oxide.

        Basically, you are right, Timea Peterfia: All the factors re the granite boxes argues against geopolymers.

        We could keep throwing points like this at the geopolymeridians and they will keep on denying it is an untenable hypothesis by deflecting attention away from their own shortcomings.”

        1. Considering the precision aspect, the Colosseum was also built using concrete and being such a large and intricate construction the tolerances would be very exacting.

          Look at cast iron moulds, intricate parts are created using sand moulds, so it is not outside the realm of possibility. Also interesting given the sand traps in the pyramids and the evidence of sand being brought into the internal structure and subsequently removed.

        2. Just a personal opinion, but to me this precision-story here is a little exaggerated. Maybe not even true. The Egypcian Pyramids are mainly huge and that’s about it. Precise you could call the “Inka” stones in cusco. They are mindboggling.

        3. Have a look at this link: http://www.geopolymer.org/applications/potential-utilizations-in-art-and-decoration“.
          They have made granite and diorite objects using geo-polymers. So it can be done. It would be (near) impossible (even today) to make these intricate objects by carving the material.
          What has not been proven yet is that the granite blocks in the internal chambers were “made” this way. Davidovits hasn’t had the opportunity to verify this.
          I do take your point regarding the precision. From what I know, the great advantage of geo-polymers compared to concrete is that there IS no shrinkage. The moulds themselves were made from geo-polymers (very strong), and a very thin geo-polymer “filler” was used between the blocks as one block was poured next to another that had already hardened.

          And, if not geo-polymers, then what are we left with? Back to the ramp theory? Each block being chisseled out of the quary and then transported?
          Or do you accept that levitation may have been used in that case?

          Lots of questions, no doubt about it.

          1. All of the proposed methods, be it geopolymer or high tech tooling and carving, require a technological ability that hasn’t survived the archaeological record (or if it has-removed).

            Knowing this, we could put forward a synthesis of the two. Why not advanced tooling for certain aspects and advanced chemistry in other?

            Either way we are left with an enigma that requires a broad analysis-not dialectic based on assumptions and fragmentary evidence.

            The ‘how’ will provide very large data points as to the ‘why’

    1. Yes sir. I just fotosearched “pyramid detail” and there you can clearly see (on hundreds of pictures) the tipical erosion patterns of concrete. NO WAY they are made out of solid rock blocks. Even if the Pyramids were shit-old thy wouldn’t deteriorate that way. It’s plane old “concrete”, made with whatever “geopolymers” they had at the time.

  4. endeed joseph, this is a great work by da french architect, i believe da best 1 so far. but there’sw another missing; da materials used to construction, seems like stone but is not. its a hand made material alike cement stone based.
    dis discovery was also made by anoder french investigator, da video dat show how to make this cement is on utube, if u wish i can send u da link.
    is a great discovery dat was found on egiptian stone engraving, they themselfs explain the procedure.
    lets remember they were alkemist.

  5. Was discussing Giza yesterday. Some are convinced the Giza pyramids, which apparently conform to the Orion constellation, are designed to function as a “star gate.” Any comments on this?

  6. What I like about this theory (apart from the practical testability),is that it doesn’t detract from the Giza Power Plant/Weapon hypotheses. The Grand gallery as a key component of construction makes sense-and it can have a primary use as part of the acoustic resonator as well.

    The internal spiral passage makes sense-and could contribute to the physics-spirals/rotation-has to have some kind of beneficial higher physics effect. The stages of assembly would make it easier to platform any astronomical devices for stellar alignments as well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r7PIceJU4M

  7. Ultra-sonics drilling and Chris Dunn

    I think you’ll find that in Chris Dunn’s last/latest book in which he goes into more detail regarding the possible method for making the statues etc in Egypt, that he pulls back quite markedly on the ultra-sonics technique. I can’t remember whether this is in relation to the coffer in the Great Pyramid or not, at this moment, but it highlighted itself to me as just one of the reasons I believe that Chris Dunn is doing some outstanding work in the field ie using the scientific method and new thinking to illuminate the high intelligence of the ancient Egyptians (if thats who they were!), and correcting mistakes in his thinking as he goes along. I wish more people who work in the field would do this and not cling on to their (possibly) more outlandish theories regarding the pyramids and other ancient structures.

    You might wish to re-read Chris Dunn’s “Lost technologies of Ancient Egypt” for more on this (the bit on ultrasonics, I believe is towards the end of the book).

    Best wishes

    H Price

  8. I am a 2 year old newcommer into this issue, but when I stumbled over Henry Stevens trilogy and William R. Lynes books. and then there was a canadian fellow equipped with obsolete canadian marine “garbage”, that drove his neighbours to a ultimate stress, when he turned “thet garbage” on, and the neighbouring apartments experienced that their ownings start to move, or to fly, well, there was something.

    Bishop Nicholas Sykes had a long serie of articles on the thunderbolt. In one of his last artcles, he suggested that gravity had to be a longitudinal wave, Maybe had acsess to the same sources that N. Tesla had into the Vatican Library.

    Well, if you look into Professor Konstantin Meyls work, confirming that energy can be transfermed via waves (scalar waves), and that spesific friquencies, can effect abnormalties in your body, then we are going into something. And scalar waves are longitudinal waves.

    I am astonished that he is allowed to publish his work.

    To me, the socalled gravity problem was partly solved by the germans in the 1930,thies when they managed to launch and propel their discs. But that was only based on elektro dynamics.

    What Chrispopher Dunn suggest is that the antedeluvian civilazation had a well understanding of sound waves and their energy, in the lower part of the Herzian frequencies, and they used it in their tools. And we lost the tools in a cataclysme. One reference to this cataclysme, is the “bible” of all cataclysme litterarure, by D.S. Allalan and J.B. Delair, what happened 11.500 years ago. Well documented in every chapter, from folklore to dug up evidence.

    What the south amarican examples show, and the slabs of the Baalbek Temple show, that there was technoligys at that time, that could move big stone blocks, over distancies, over valleys, that we can not do today.

    The time frame, many suggestions, Anthony West has some plausible thoughts, and also ” the giza starfighter”, LOL..

    So, this was my “narrow stretch” over this vast subject,. And I am not near the bottom.of the learning pit…..

    .

  9. I’m not concerned “how” it was built but “when”. I think if we knew a lot more about the dates when the pyramid was built, and also all of the other temples, we might be in a better position.

    We all know that they were not built using copper chisels, wooden logs, ropes and 100,000 holywood extras. It’s also the “accuracy” and “precision” that stumps the minds of academia.

    Wether it was a machine or a weapon, the thing just stands there a looks at us begging for anybody to come up with the answer.

    Maybe we are not just smart enough now, but who knows in 50 years, because it will still be there, stareing.

  10. It will be interesting to see if this Houdin(i) stunt will provide a reasonable answer. One theory I haven’t seen advanced is that they were built by Edward Leedskalnin in a previous incarnation 😉 Why not? I rather favor the divine power method used by the remnant Sons of God: manipulation of gravitational force. Elisabeth Haich in her book ‘Initiation’ offers this description: “When a huge block of stone has been made weightless in this way, even a child could push it about with its little finger or raise it to any desired height. Ships were piled high with these gigantic blocks of stone without being overloaded, because the blocks had been subjected in advance to the proper form of radiation and so made weightless. All the gigantic edifices, here and in other parts of the world, which human power would never have been able to build were erected by the Sons of God in this way. Wherever the Sons of God disembarked from their ships, they created a high civilization.” (ch 24 Sons of God)

  11. They are so much like blindfolded men trying to pin the tail on the elephant when it comes to attempting to explain how the great pyramid was constructed. The only thing we can know for certain is that no ramps, log rollers or copper chisels were involved.

  12. Same old same old here. Houdin has a YT video of this that’s about an hour or so long. It’s been around for a while.

    Egyptologists will buy this stuff because it still fits in with their paradigm but Houdin’s theory still doesn’t explain, nor address the complicated Mathematics and precision involved in its construction.

    But hey, that’s not important, just so long as we can all rest assured knowing that nothing of any significance existed before Sumer and the Old Kingdom – right!!!

  13. the most credible theory I’ve heard so far is that they are made from concrete.
    they had their own cement and simply built them the way we build our large buildings.
    I can’t remember where I heard it, but the theory is out there and sounds pretty credible.
    Any other explanation involves unnecessary phantastic assumptions.

    Also solid rock blocks wouldn’t deteriorate the way you can observe on the pyramids, in fact they would hardly deteriorate at all (compare the rocks in stonehenge or any other ancient assembly like rapa nui)

    1. Not concrete, but geo-polymers, different process and materials.
      Look up the research done by Joseph Davidovits at geopolymer.org.
      Davidovits has proven – and it has been independently verified – that the blocks in the Great Pyramid are artificial. This includes the lime stone casing stones and likely the massive granite blocks (although I don’t think the granite has been verified yet).

      1. yes, that’s it. artificial building blocks piled up. Apart from the obviously massive labour involved, I don’t really see the technical difficulties in constructing it, after all it’s a pretty primitive geometrical structutre. A trainee in bricklaying can line that out. The inner architecture of course might be a whole different story though.

        1. With all respect fishballs, I think you are neglecting the OPTICAL PRECISION in which the blocks were laid and alligned. Not to mention the alignment of the entire structure. This includes the outer layer, or casing stones.
          To call the Great Pyramid a “primitive geometrical structure” is doing the builders and the structure itself a great injustice. Look up the work of Flinders Petrie who did a detailed survey of the pyramids.

          1. Well, there’s practically no simpler geometric structure than a pyramid. I can only think of a cube as being more primitive than a pyramid. Or can you think of any? I’m not saying they’re not impressive in their size, but they sure are simple.

Comments are closed.