Actually there is merit to what Smitty mentioned. There are illustrious Egyptologists out there in the world who all agree, the center "stones" were poured into molds. There is no "strata" to them at all. They look like an aggregate was mixed very evenly throughout. The only Egyptologist that I know of in this world who still thinks they are actual carved stones is Zahi Hawass (spelling?)
The external stones, any of the ones open to the elements, and the stones that are visible in any of the interior spaces are all stone stone. It really looks like it's concrete.
Also, there are these copper pieces that are meant to keep the "stones" from moving apart, and a lot of people who have studied them think the grooves where the copper piece ties the two stones together appear to be stamped, not carved.
Also, the oldest known record of any kind on the pyramids suggests that the great pyramid was built in about two weeks. It would seem possible if they were using anything at all similar to Roman Concrete which would set overnight and ready to use the following day.
What else? I'm kind up up on this topic considering the paranormal angle (paranormal is one of my top subjects).
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Neal Chabot <sire@comcast.net> wrote:
It makes sense only if the Egyptians used concrete, which they did not.
Neal
From: "Smitty"I read somewhere that the egyptians used
concrete and not huge stones to build the pyramids.
Could the Romans have used the Egyptian's
formula ? Makes sense. . .
Smitty
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
