In 1988, he wrote “The Pyramids, An Enigma Solved” and I think I read the book at that time. His theory always made the most sense. Funny how the archaeology community simply refuses to accept it.
...because testing of the blocks shows they were carved out of a quarry, not poured. Testing has revealed that the cover stones may have been poured. But the other blocks? Pure granite or limestone. Out of the Aswan quarry or elsewhere. The unfinished obelisk at Aswan is proof that some technique was used to carve these giant blocks out. We still have no idea what that technique was. It certainly was not stone balls (current theory) or copper chisels.
In essence, a shuttered lean mortar mix using an aggregate and lime combination to create the desired colouration and finish of natural stone.@@BillBird2111
@@BillBird2111 Just because some things were quarried and moved doesn't mean everything was. Furthermore, you can use natron and fire to "melt" away granite and the Egyptians had already used natron quite a lot for many things including mummification. Obelisks lend themselves well to the "rolling stones" technique where you encase the obelisk/pillar in a wooden housing as the axle of a big wooden wheel and then drag it like a rolling pin. The Romans are documented to have some that.
@@chaorrottai Ancient Egyptians did not have wheels. Try again. They may have used something for mummification, but that same substance did not melt stone. The next time you write something like that, read it first before you let the rest of humanity read it. Nobody knows how this was done. Period. Understand? There are as many theories about how it was done as there are fleas on my dog's butt. It doesn't mean a thing.
It seems all the moulding work is done on the Giza stone base after carrying the lime powder and moulded on the Pyramid.It is easy to carry the lime powder up to greater heights than shifting the lime stone block.Best theory of construction of pyramid.
Garnet slabs were floated down the Nile, airbags attached. Objects loose half their weight in water. Thousands of years ago, the Nile was much closer to the pyramids then today. Also, canals were built to bring water and construction materials to the pyramids.
@@CorgiCorner As granite slabs. I think cutting, transporting, hauling some slabs up the pyramid is one thing and makes sense as a doable task, but cutting and hauling every single rock in it is a vastly bigger and harder enterprise
Scientists and historians hate being wrong. They’ve been teaching the same thing their whole lives so theyll do anything to hide theories that make more sense. Which is why this isnt more popular.
Becase the lunatics in academia and universities branded this guy as conspiracy theorist. When a professor is branded a conspiracy theorist he is forgotten and hidden from mainstream because he is right.
When I was 9 years old I was laughed at when I posited this very method of building the pyramid. They said, no, it was natural rock chiselled to shape. In a few years, people will understand my further hypothesis that the blocks, after curing, were never moved! They were molded in place!
Most logical explanation I have heard. I also know that granite can be melted and is also likely how some of the large granite blocks inside the pyramids were made. These People were far advanced and much of their technology is not recorded.
@@VenturaIT Interesting theory. But how? What were the acids that were used? I do not buy the explanation of "we had the knowledge once but forgot how it was done" argument. That's BS. Has modern man ever forgotten any type of technology? Like how to build an iPhone? C'mon! Not happening. That said, I do like your theory. You should try to expand upon it.
@@BillBird2111 Dr. Davidovits, PhD teaches about it and has written several books on it at the Geopolymer Institute. Acids and bases where used depending on the situation. From their website: What is a geopolymer? Introduction 5 Apr 2006 Geopolymers are chains or networks of mineral molecules linked with co-valent bonds. They have following basic characteristics: a) Nature of the hardened material: X-ray amorphous at ambient and medium temperatures X-ray crystalline at temperatures > 500°C b) Synthesis Routes: alkaline medium (Na, K, Ca) hydroxides and alkali-silicates yielding poly(silicates) - poly(siloxo) type or poly(silico-aluminates) - poly(sialate) type acidic medium (Phosphoric acid) yielding poly(phospho-siloxo) and poly(alumino-phospho) types As an example, one of the geopolymeric precursors, MK-750 (metakaolin) with its alumoxyl group -Si-O-Al=O, reacts in both systems, alkaline and acidic. Same for siloxo-based and organo-siloxo-based geopolymeric species that also react in both alkaline and acidic medium. Geopolymer Terminology In the late 1970’s, Joseph Davidovits, the inventor and developer of geopolymerization, coined the term “geopolymer” to classify the newly discovered geosynthesis that produces inorganic polymeric materials now used for a number of industrial applications. He also set a logical scientific terminology based on different chemical units, essentially for silicate and aluminosilicate materials, classified according to the Si:Al atomic ratio: Si:Al = 0, siloxo Si:Al = 1, sialate (acronym for silicon-oxo-aluminate of Na, K, Ca, Li) Si:Al = 2, sialate-siloxo Si:Al = 3, sialate-disiloxo Si:Al > 3, sialate link. This terminology was presented to the scientific community at a IUPAC conference in 1976. See for details in the Library the paper Milestone Paper IUPAC-76 In the introduction of his book on alkali-geopolymer cement, the alkali-cement scientist John Provis, challenged the use of the word ‘sialate’ arguing that “…the term ‘sialate’ was already in use (since the 1950s) to describe any of the salts of organic sialic acid …” He simply forgot to mention that long before 1950 geology has been using extensively the term ‘sialic’, for example in ‘sialic metamorphic rocks‘, or ‘the oceanic crust is mostly basaltic and the continental crust is mostly sialic, meaning the rocks, such as granite, contain high amounts of aluminum and silica‘. Not to forget the fact that fly ashes were and still are commonly classified into three entities: calcic-, ferric- and sialic-groups; the sialic component results from the %weight of (SiO2 + Al2O3 + TiO2). There exists another example, namely the well known term ‘SIALON’, a specialist class of high temperature refractory materials, acronym of silicon-aluminum-oxo-nitride, i.e. a scientific logical terminology. The geopolymeric ‘sialate‘ term proceeds from the same scientific logic (it is the acronym of silicon-oxo-aluminate), in contrast with the organic molecule ‘sialic acid’ that was derived from an ancient Greek word meaning ‘saliva’, with no scientific association. In fact, for our geopolymer molecules we write poly(sialate) / polysialate or poly(sialate-siloxo), a terminology never used in biochemistry. We shall therefore keep our terminology, use it and promote it without any restriction. Geopolymers comprise following molecular units (or chemical groups): -Si-O-Si-O- siloxo, poly(siloxo) -Si-O-Al-O- sialate, poly(sialate) -Si-O-Al-O-Si-O- sialate-siloxo, poly(sialate-siloxo) -Si-O-Al-O-Si-O-Si-O- sialate-disiloxo, poly(sialate-disiloxo) -P-O-P-O- phosphate, poly(phosphate) -P-O-Si-O-P-O- phospho-siloxo, poly(phospho-siloxo) -P-O-Si-O-Al-O-P-O- phospho-sialate, poly(phospho-sialate) -(R)-Si-O-Si-O-(R) organo-siloxo, poly-silicone -Al-O-P-O- alumino-phospho, poly(alumino-phospho) -Fe-O-Si-O-Al-O-Si-O- ferro-sialate, poly(ferro-sialate) Geopolymers are presently developed and applied in 10 main classes of materials: Waterglass-based geopolymer, poly(siloxonate), soluble silicate, Si:Al=1:0 Kaolinite / Hydrosodalite-based geopolymer, poly(sialate) Si:Al=1:1 Metakaolin MK-750-based geopolymer, poly(sialate-siloxo) Si:Al=2:1 Calcium-based geopolymer, (Ca, K, Na)-sialate, Si:Al=1, 2, 3 Rock-based geopolymer, poly(sialate-multisiloxo) 1< Si:Al5 Fly ash-based geopolymer Ferro-sialate-based geopolymer Phosphate-based geopolymer, AlPO4-based geopolymer Organic-mineral geopolymer
@@BillBird2111 we have actually lost quite a few technological techniques. off the top of my head, there was one with concrete, i think roman concrete, theyve only just worked out and back engineered, but for many years we had no idea why roman concrete lasted much longer and is stronger than modern day mortar, but they believe they have finally cracked it yet there are still other lost technologies, such as greek fire, a closely guarded secret recipe that enabled things to burn in water, useful for marine warfare, they only can speculate what it was made from expand your knowledge before outright calling something BS, just saying, not everything is known, information is often lost and forgotten
This makes sense, also a simple rope and pulley system would've made sending the limestone mix up the pyramid easy. And if two people were compacting with ram more quicker. Several teams going at once all round the pyramid.
I'm yet not sure I understand why fossils are in the concrete slabs that are supposedly made from molds. If these slabs are made from molds into which some mixture was poured, the grounding up of the materials should have broken up any remaining fossils
I enjoyed this video very much, and have read Prof. Davidovits' book with great interest. The evidence appears to be there in plain sight, that a type of cement was used at Giza at some time in the distant past. I've also read Christopher Dunn's books, and his arguments concerning advanced machining at Giza are very strong. I think as modern investigative techniques get better and better, the ideas held by the "mainstream" archaeologists and Egyptologists will slowly but surely become redundant and outdated.
This is good thinking outside of the box. This method would surely have saved much labour and time with the casing blocks after installing the immense internal supporting stones. I liked the process of mixing the batch.
i'm quickly becoming a fan of the geopolymer argument. now can we reproduce the "red granite" from Egypt and the "H blocks" from Peru? Davidovits tested those as well and concluded they were geopolymer. i want to see this all reproduced to appease the scientific method crowd.' K2019 may be right, it would make more sense than copper chisels.
don't forget the whole pyramid was covered in a protective plaster covering and painted..or course this would have lasted a good period of time before the heat/wind/rain eroded it leaving the geopolymer blocks to slowly succumb to the elements!
I'd like to see how many fossils they found - perhaps the crushing process wasn't as efficient as we might insist upon today. The Romans used a basic concrete in the Colusseum - it's extremely durable stuff.
if you watch the video and listen, they clearly say that the aggregate (material used for the blocks) required NO CRUSHING... later on they sampled the blocks they made, then they took them to a labratory and the lab couldn't tell that it was artificial limestone, the lab thought it was natural limestone using the highest modern technology they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
to me having studied the ancient monolithic structures closely, this was not only eye opening but jaw dropping. finally i now know how the pyramids were made fantastic lets put to be the aliens, slaves, ramps and any magic hollywood go eat a brick, this is excellent and i am glad to have witnessed this miracle finally ... now i know blessing to all involved kudos.
As a student, how would you explain aswan quarry obelisk? A google search on it shows block shape stones being carved out? Or do you reckon they scrapped the limestone to then remixed it to mold? Curious if that also explains the rose granite blocks in the kings chamber? I mean if you have seen real granite that thing is natural and pretty hard to break apart let alone being produced like a concrete.
Think for a moment... you wouldn't stack artificial blocks after they were made - they would be cast in place. Davidovits theory is most compelling regarding the development from mud-bricks to ammalgamated stone.
I miss typed a word up there " maybe they mixed real stones with artificial ones " but the idea looks ok to me.I am no archiologist but i lived by the pyramids in egypt and I have seen them and they go me always thinking how the hell they built all that ( i was only loking for one pyramid) and when i thought of how many pyramids there are,and the amount of hard work involved,none of the other theories satisfied my curiousity.Thanks
What about the fact that the inner stones are made of granite. Also if you look at the stones on the side of the great entrance they are all at large angles and not laid flat. How could you use this method if the stones was not laying flat?
i totally agree, it wouldn't be strong enough to hold up structures as big as pyramids. besides, the pyramids were only lined with Limestone blocks, their inner blocks were not limestone. so whatever way you look at it, this isn't a likely solution.
And what makes you so sure of this? It's mainly compressive load in the lower parts of the pyramid. The material should be perfectly fine to hold that. And to my knowledge, there were only a couple of massive granite blocks in the center. So this still explains 95%+ of the material used.
wrong the inner blocks are limestone the outer thin casing is granite they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
Outstandig and impressive presentation to you and everyone that one way or another collaborated to make this document and share it with us my most expensive thanks, well done guys, from Puerto Rico to you guys....Jesus Torres.
In Al-Quran (Islamic Holy Book) said 1400 years ago that Pharaoh build the pyramid (tower) was using "baked clay" instead of limestones (baked clay turn into rock limestone after thousand of year process ) and I believe is true because there is no such technology at that time In how to pull and lift a heavy rock limestone. Many Scientist thought that pyramid were built by pull and lifting the limestone using temporary water canal and hang it with wood in the water (Buoyancy weight) or rail tunnel to transport the limestone rock from bottom to the top. It's an insane method and if it's true the people in egypt will build the other things with this "insane method" and also people in egypt can create a heavy duty wire-rope and make a good tools to cut precision the limestones as well. This is my opinion: The pharaoh was instructing Haman (Architect ministry of ancient Egypt) and their slaves to made giant statue or big bricks from mud clay and arranged them as base foundation, after that when the stone molds were still wet they did the engraving (Hieroglif) at the big stone walls and when they want to continue the work by making them higher they burnt it first and repeat it step by step until the top of pyramid done. Scientist just need to prove that mixed material of "baked clay" can be turn into the limestone after three thousand years process
What about the unfinished obelisk at the Aswan quarry in Egypt? It's clear proof that someone had the technology and know-how to carve gigantic blocks straight out of a granite deposit. Not baked clay, but real granite. We know they were doing this because the unfinished obelisk is proof that was left behind. We still don't know how they did it, or how they transported it, or who actually built the pyramid structure.
@@BillBird2111 Obelisks represented the fallice of Osiris(King Nimrod). It had to be 1 whole piece because the myth was 13 pieces were dismembered and only the fallice or obelisk was missing.
If I'm not mistaken the sphinx was supposedly built BEFORE the pyramids of Giza. There are many other pyramids built before those at Giza but only the Giza pyramids came out perfect. Thank you
I would say they didn't. if you use the above method for 99% of the material in it that drastically reduces the work load and increases the speed. It's one thing to cut and haul 1% of the rock in it. Another to cut and haul 100% of it
they knew by their calculations they would never have enough stone, hence making this polymer after having used up the granite for a more solid base perhaps!
if you use the above method for 99% of the material in it that drastically reduces the work load and increases the speed. It's one thing to cut and haul 1% of the rock in it (for special locations such as the kings chamber) another to cut and haul 100% of it and be cutting, transporting, hauling up the pyramid, and placing a rock every five minutes for 20 years.
It says there's 140 comments but I can only see 3. Anyone here know wherebi can get Joseph Davistovits original book, they built the pyramids ? I cannot find it anywhere 😫
Evidence that some stone was quarried is not evidence that no blocks were made in this way. There is no logical connection whatsoever. For all we know the quarrying and the pyramid could have been done by completely different civilizations thousands of years apart.
Correction, you see evidence where stones have been quarried. Nobody has ever correctly matched the stones in the pyramids to the quarry. If fact they tried and failed so it was conveniently sidestepped.
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ maybe those 4 bc.. but nowadays we know pyramids is 8-12k old :) when you look hieroglyphs you see wich one is old 12k and wich one is old 6k years... those who are 6k years old is ugly and it's made with colours... the older one are cast into a stone :)
Scott Adams brought me here. I've always known some walls in the area were made by stacking bags of concrete type stuff and letting it dry. I was always told the blocks were obviously not cement. What possible reason would a foreign government dependent on tourism have to lie about this?
One of the problems with this theory is that most of the core blocks of the Great Pyramid are not at all of the rectilinear & uniform shape of the blocks they cast in this demonstration. The actual Great Pyramid core blocks are quite irregular and of many different sizes and shapes (look at any photo of the Great Pyramid). The size also varies from course to course of the Great Pyramid, some courses are 15" & some are 24" in height. A geologist and a simple visual analysis by a qualified geologist or stone mason would settle this question very quickly. Also, the ancient Egyptians did not have lime, nor use it in their mortar. It takes a lot of heat to make lime, Egypt had very little fuel (mostly acacia trees) to use to make lime. Lime was not used in Egyptian masonry construction until the Roman era, roughly 300 BC, and 2000 years after the Great Pyramid was built. Also, the remnants of a vast quarry adjacent to the GP has been identified as the source of the core blocks. I'd go with the Alien Levitation theories before I'd give this one much credence.
From the FAQ GPI: "The theory is now well-known by the public since 1988 (first publication of the book in english), but presented earlier in official egyptology congresses since 1979. The Geopolymer Institute website exists since 1996 and, since the beginning, the theory was exposed in detail. Since then, new scientific papers, new books, new videos, new webpages have been published with the latest updates. Nevertheless, most opponents are always expressing their opinions based on hearsays, preconceived ideas, clichés, and are not taking 10 minutes of their precious time to read what is presented here. Some of them are publishing rebuttals using “wrong” arguments that Davidovits’ has never raised instead of quoting his work (for example, we do not claim to crush stones as aggregates, a useless exhausting effort, but instead asserting the use of weathered or eroded stones). A parody of science since some studies were made on “fake” pyramid samples. See section #5 below and the page: Deep misleading publications by geologists. These published sloppy papers are taken for serious references by the opponents of the re-agglomerated theory. You will be disappointed by the fact that this misleading behavior represents the vast majority of the opponents. Why? Because the artificial stone theory is the truth, they don’t know how to counter it. They are missing the big picture. "2There is stone everywhere. Why bother to make a concrete? This is common sense, isn’t it? You are thinking of the use of stones with a modern mind, in terms of architecture. For 3000 years long, Egyptians used stones (whether man-made or carved) only for religious purposes: temples, tombs and statues. Where are the houses, where are the palaces, where are the garrisons? They were built in crude bricks. During the pyramids time, it was forbidden to carve stones. Man-made stone bears a specific religious meaning related to the creation of life. Read more about this topic in the extended abstract under the “Religious context“. If it is not convincing enough: Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth."
@@henrikonnou7466 Sorry, your "facts" are not at all convincing. If the blocks were cast why are they so irregular and of different sizes - in the same course and in different courses. Also, why didn't they use the same "liquid stone" as mortar between the irregular blocks? The mortar they used has been examined many times throughout modern archeology and has been determined to be a non-lime, mud mortar. I'm curious to know your background: Have you ever mixed a trough of cement or mortar? Have you ever laid a wall of bricks, block or stone?
@@willyboccecolla7926 " If the blocks were cast why are they so irregular and of different sizes - in the same course and in different courses. " Blocks are in the same course, aren't they ? What's the point ? "The mortar they used has been examined many times throughout modern archeology and has been determined to be a non-lime, mud mortar. " Mud mortar ? About the artificial limestone, as you wrote in your previous message : "A geologist and a simple visual analysis by a qualified geologist or stone mason would settle this question very quickly". But it is written in the FAQ of the Geopolymer Institute : "Scientific analysis: Now that more and more scientists agree and support the theory, some have decided to carry on researches without my help and without requesting any approval from egyptologists, so in total independence from both parties. The analysis methods used today by geologists are not relevant. They cannot make a difference between a natural and a synthetic mineral. Indeed, the molecule of a mineral is by essence always the same, whether it is natural or synthetic, otherwise it would be another molecule, so another mineral. To show the artificial nature of the material, they need to work with more powerful methods (analysis by synchrotron, transmission and electronic scan microscopy SEM TEM, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Paleomagnetism, Particle Induced Gamma-Ray Emission, Particle Induced X-Ray Emission, X-ray fluorescence, X-ray Diffraction). These tools are seldom used in this situation. Studies have been made, and all show that the pyramid stones are artificial." So, did you see the video above ? Any "qualified geologist or stone mason" could not see the difference between natural or artificial limestone (geopolymer). "I'm curious to know your background". I would ask you the same thing.
i think these guys are right ,from the looks of it it looks e-z to do ( easy enough to be done so many times for so many pyramids )the only test left is the solidity test ,if those stones could support that much weight .or maybe the mized those artificial stones with real ones too
actually, compacted "cement" as they propose is definately not strong enough to maintain that kind of weight no matter how much it is dried - take the mega-ton weight of each block from the very top all the way down to the second row from the base, and there would be NO WAY that the foundation could support it - it would crumble like sand.
It is actually is the most elegant explanation i know, though I wonder, is it possible to create a stone like this with the same chemical composition as a real pyramid block has. And if you can build like this wouldn't you want to build everything like this
In 3000 years will people look at concrete foundations and think they were carved from stone? We have expensive cut stone and we also have cheaper method poured stone. Of note* We've improved concrete a lot in the last 30 years. 1" thick concrete countertops are a recent technology. We're still figuring out why roman concrete is so damn good.... So yes, I think the bulk of the stones were poured and the granite was probably cut. It explains the scale and the how much better... But not cut with copper tools. That and much of the "scientific community answers " don't hold up. One must remember, the Catholic Church condemned Galileo because his theory "went against the science of the day". They actually were quoting the experts in their ruling!
Let’s say that this IS true. How do you explain the information about the cosmos, the encoding of the speed of light (in both feet and meters), the equatorial circumference of the earth, the polar radius of the earth, the average height of land on earth, and and and… All being encoded into the great pyramid? How do you explain the knowledge of the pyramid being made of material, over aquafers, using a gold capstone to turn this pyramid (and the others around the globe)… to create a super conductor capable of transmitting wireless energy (like Tesla’s tower)? This pyramid is telling us that we have ancient technology that is lost… that is only now starting to be rediacovered
Just read the Bible. We know fallen angel gods have been screwing over humanity for centuries. Of course they had technology. Remember we are living after a massive mud-flood wiped out the last great advanced civilization.
You missed the point, they cld have past cement filled baskets in a chain & caste the blocks in situe. In French climate blocks took 4 days to dry. It is now 40 deg c in Egypt, & only rains on average 1 day a year which keeps the ground rock hard. Heiroglyphs are from a later period.
Interesting, but that is not what the ancient art depicts. Also, at the giza and elsewhere, you can see the places where the stones were cut. Notches at the bottom indicate where wooden machines may have aided in the lifting of the blocks. Were the blocks poured, you better hope there is no rain until they cure.
There are still granite blocks, that needed lifting and cutting. Also, maybe not all blocks might have been cast in place, e.g. the angled ones on the surface.
@@hansdietrich1496 they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
Btw...and how come egyp. heroglyphs dont mention a single thing about building the pyramids, but they metion every other little thing that happend during their history
the only other way to have huge perfectly fitted matched blocks would be to lap them in. To wiggle and grind them together bit by bit until they were perfect. You could hardly move a 50 to 500 ton block let alone machine perfect faces and make numbers of them. Packing forms and molds with "primitive" tools is the only plausible explanation. No way they could lap or set a 50 ton block without breaking corners and edges off of limestone.
@@meinkek7896 I think the theory is just a theory. I don't think they moved, lifted, and machined the huge blocks. Not humans without machines. They were cast and molded in place not lifted and relifted dozens or hundreds of times and lapped in. You can disagree but it doesn't make it more plausible. I just can't see it. Not one single chip or broken edge anywhere..
The aliens(fallen angels) probably taught them how to do that. But that was in Babylon when Nimrod and his fallen angel goofballs built a goofy tower. Genesis 11:3 "They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar."
The theory is all good until you realize that testing showed that the blocks used for the pyramids were cut out of a quarry that they have littlerly found that was used to get the stones.
Part 2 Who told me ? no one, but if u reserched well enought u will find that the same kind of Pyramids' Rocks only Exist on South of egypt... and guys for your General Information, there are more than 80 Pyramid in Egypt, not only 3..
Other experiments have shown that they can be cut by using sand to erode it slowly as you saw it off with tools, essentially making the sand the cutting edge of the tool, it takes time, but it is nothing that can't be done by just trowing people at it
they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
@@meinkek7896 But the chamber has different materiel, it has a beautiful granit walls and ceiling. Are you saying that this material turns to granit after let say 5000 years?
@@meinkek7896 600 years ago??? My town is older that the pyramids then. And the homosapiens discovered recently in Morocco 300 000 years old. I don’t know if you are trolling or not, either ways I wish you to have a nice day!
Not everything was casted, if you read further davidovits explains this. The granite blocks where shipped and dragged in place. The limestone blocks mixture was made at local basins near the great pyramids... 4000 years ago the scenery was much greener near the Pyramides as we see today... You can see these days the Sahara is getting larger and larger still...
they didnt "get them up there" they walked up and then made them in place, they were cast in place on top of and next to each other, that's why the joints are perfectly tight and even bend like the next block exactly
Except they found at least one unfinished stone where the cut diverted, so the granite block was left unfinished. That's right. Granite. Limestone was found to be both cast and cut. The deep hole in the ground just outside the pyramids with the staircase to nowhere is the wet hole where a giant diamond disc spun half out of the ground. This is how stones were cut, and they can't do that up high, so they had to use alien technology to move the stones up, because there were not enough people to move the stones up. Further, why would anyone think they need people or boats to move stones when we already know the structure sits right on the ring found by Jim Alison. See his report on the prehistoric alignment of world wonders. I think it's 14 megalithic sites are all part of the circle. Also, a survey stone was found on the coast north of Giza, which is far below the horizon line. Curvature of the earth keeps it from being seen except from around a mile up. You don't get that convenient atmospheric distortion like they do over water in those flat earther videos. The mere existence of any structure on this circle line, proves the builders had space travel!!!
they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
yeah, and all the laborers had medical and dental and had a union making sure they got 2 15 minute breaks and a lunch hour. Come on man, you're confusing pizza with pyramids. Italians did some pretty cool things but they definitely didn't build the Eygptian pyramids.
in fact, the pharoh who was SUPPOSED to built it by modern scholars, claimed he actually maintained the pyramid instead. why would he claim the credit if he was the one?
I love the way scientists and experts try to explain how the pyramids were created..its like listening to creationists trying to explain dinosaur bones
Um is it just me or do I see a commercial application here? All those ingrediants are DIRT cheap--- heh... well, actually they are dirt :) This could be a replacement form of concrete... but much much cheaper!
The outfits were completely necessary for this build
pero faltaron los latigazos para mejorar el ánimo en la construcción
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think it really drove the point home for me!😆😆😆😆
I admit, the outfits made me smirk. 😏
😆
This theory make a lot of sense. And simple. More believable than other theories
They have stone quarries where evidence shows that the stones were quarried from the ground
Total bullshit
Looks like the quarries may have been used for other projects.
@@tdawgt5866 well yeah. Where else would they get it?
@@tdawgt5866 Quarries were needed for the limestone aggregate.
In 1988, he wrote “The Pyramids, An Enigma Solved” and I think I read the book at that time. His theory always made the most sense. Funny how the archaeology community simply refuses to accept it.
.. because the myth that they dragged the huge blocks over wood with slaves sells good 😂
...because testing of the blocks shows they were carved out of a quarry, not poured. Testing has revealed that the cover stones may have been poured. But the other blocks? Pure granite or limestone. Out of the Aswan quarry or elsewhere. The unfinished obelisk at Aswan is proof that some technique was used to carve these giant blocks out. We still have no idea what that technique was. It certainly was not stone balls (current theory) or copper chisels.
In essence, a shuttered lean mortar mix using an aggregate and lime combination to create the desired colouration and finish of natural stone.@@BillBird2111
@@BillBird2111 Just because some things were quarried and moved doesn't mean everything was.
Furthermore, you can use natron and fire to "melt" away granite and the Egyptians had already used natron quite a lot for many things including mummification.
Obelisks lend themselves well to the "rolling stones" technique where you encase the obelisk/pillar in a wooden housing as the axle of a big wooden wheel and then drag it like a rolling pin.
The Romans are documented to have some that.
@@chaorrottai Ancient Egyptians did not have wheels. Try again. They may have used something for mummification, but that same substance did not melt stone. The next time you write something like that, read it first before you let the rest of humanity read it. Nobody knows how this was done. Period. Understand? There are as many theories about how it was done as there are fleas on my dog's butt. It doesn't mean a thing.
It seems all the moulding work is done on the Giza stone base after carrying the lime powder and moulded on the Pyramid.It is easy to carry the lime powder up to greater heights than shifting the lime stone block.Best theory of construction of pyramid.
Lol
But then again how would you explain the granite slabs?
We've known this for thousands of years. Nothing new
Garnet slabs were floated down the Nile, airbags attached.
Objects loose half their weight in water.
Thousands of years ago, the Nile was much closer to the pyramids then today.
Also, canals were built to bring water and construction materials to the pyramids.
@@CorgiCorner As granite slabs. I think cutting, transporting, hauling some slabs up the pyramid is one thing and makes sense as a doable task, but cutting and hauling every single rock in it is a vastly bigger and harder enterprise
Its insane to me how I haven't herd of his theory from all my years of digging haha until the great pyramid documentary k2019 they just released
Yes I never heard this either. And I've watched 100's of documentaries and videos
Scientists and historians hate being wrong. They’ve been teaching the same thing their whole lives so theyll do anything to hide theories that make more sense. Which is why this isnt more popular.
Becase the lunatics in academia and universities branded this guy as conspiracy theorist. When a professor is branded a conspiracy theorist he is forgotten and hidden from mainstream because he is right.
When I was 9 years old I was laughed at when I posited this very method of building the pyramid. They said, no, it was natural rock chiselled to shape.
In a few years, people will understand my further hypothesis that the blocks, after curing, were never moved!
They were molded in place!
This comment aged really well!
I’m 14 years late but this was exactly what I was thinking. Also when you made this comment I was only 10 years old, now I’m 24 😳
Lol
Egypt needs the tourist dollars that is why?
Like the aliens built the pyramids?
LOL!
Most logical explanation I have heard. I also know that granite can be melted and is also likely how some of the large granite blocks inside the pyramids were made. These People were far advanced and much of their technology is not recorded.
Melted granite solidifies into volcanic glass.
they made the granite the same way, but using acids instead of basic chemistry
@@VenturaIT Interesting theory. But how? What were the acids that were used? I do not buy the explanation of "we had the knowledge once but forgot how it was done" argument. That's BS. Has modern man ever forgotten any type of technology? Like how to build an iPhone? C'mon! Not happening. That said, I do like your theory. You should try to expand upon it.
@@BillBird2111 Dr. Davidovits, PhD teaches about it and has written several books on it at the Geopolymer Institute. Acids and bases where used depending on the situation.
From their website:
What is a geopolymer? Introduction
5 Apr 2006
Geopolymers are chains or networks of mineral molecules linked with co-valent bonds. They have following basic characteristics:
a) Nature of the hardened material:
X-ray amorphous at ambient and medium temperatures
X-ray crystalline at temperatures > 500°C
b) Synthesis Routes:
alkaline medium (Na, K, Ca) hydroxides and alkali-silicates yielding poly(silicates) - poly(siloxo) type or poly(silico-aluminates) - poly(sialate) type
acidic medium (Phosphoric acid) yielding poly(phospho-siloxo) and poly(alumino-phospho) types
As an example, one of the geopolymeric precursors, MK-750 (metakaolin) with its alumoxyl group -Si-O-Al=O, reacts in both systems, alkaline and acidic. Same for siloxo-based and organo-siloxo-based geopolymeric species that also react in both alkaline and acidic medium.
Geopolymer Terminology
In the late 1970’s, Joseph Davidovits, the inventor and developer of geopolymerization, coined the term “geopolymer” to classify the newly discovered geosynthesis that produces inorganic polymeric materials now used for a number of industrial applications. He also set a logical scientific terminology based on different chemical units, essentially for silicate and aluminosilicate materials, classified according to the Si:Al atomic ratio:
Si:Al = 0, siloxo
Si:Al = 1, sialate (acronym for silicon-oxo-aluminate of Na, K, Ca, Li)
Si:Al = 2, sialate-siloxo
Si:Al = 3, sialate-disiloxo
Si:Al > 3, sialate link.
This terminology was presented to the scientific community at a IUPAC conference in 1976. See for details in the Library the paper Milestone Paper IUPAC-76
In the introduction of his book on alkali-geopolymer cement, the alkali-cement scientist John Provis, challenged the use of the word ‘sialate’ arguing that “…the term ‘sialate’ was already in use (since the 1950s) to describe any of the salts of organic sialic acid …” He simply forgot to mention that long before 1950 geology has been using extensively the term ‘sialic’, for example in ‘sialic metamorphic rocks‘, or ‘the oceanic crust is mostly basaltic and the continental crust is mostly sialic, meaning the rocks, such as granite, contain high amounts of aluminum and silica‘. Not to forget the fact that fly ashes were and still are commonly classified into three entities: calcic-, ferric- and sialic-groups; the sialic component results from the %weight of (SiO2 + Al2O3 + TiO2). There exists another example, namely the well known term ‘SIALON’, a specialist class of high temperature refractory materials, acronym of silicon-aluminum-oxo-nitride, i.e. a scientific logical terminology. The geopolymeric ‘sialate‘ term proceeds from the same scientific logic (it is the acronym of silicon-oxo-aluminate), in contrast with the organic molecule ‘sialic acid’ that was derived from an ancient Greek word meaning ‘saliva’, with no scientific association. In fact, for our geopolymer molecules we write poly(sialate) / polysialate or poly(sialate-siloxo), a terminology never used in biochemistry. We shall therefore keep our terminology, use it and promote it without any restriction.
Geopolymers comprise following molecular units (or chemical groups):
-Si-O-Si-O- siloxo, poly(siloxo)
-Si-O-Al-O- sialate, poly(sialate)
-Si-O-Al-O-Si-O- sialate-siloxo, poly(sialate-siloxo)
-Si-O-Al-O-Si-O-Si-O- sialate-disiloxo, poly(sialate-disiloxo)
-P-O-P-O- phosphate, poly(phosphate)
-P-O-Si-O-P-O- phospho-siloxo, poly(phospho-siloxo)
-P-O-Si-O-Al-O-P-O- phospho-sialate, poly(phospho-sialate)
-(R)-Si-O-Si-O-(R) organo-siloxo, poly-silicone
-Al-O-P-O- alumino-phospho, poly(alumino-phospho)
-Fe-O-Si-O-Al-O-Si-O- ferro-sialate, poly(ferro-sialate)
Geopolymers are presently developed and applied in 10 main classes of materials:
Waterglass-based geopolymer, poly(siloxonate), soluble silicate, Si:Al=1:0
Kaolinite / Hydrosodalite-based geopolymer, poly(sialate) Si:Al=1:1
Metakaolin MK-750-based geopolymer, poly(sialate-siloxo) Si:Al=2:1
Calcium-based geopolymer, (Ca, K, Na)-sialate, Si:Al=1, 2, 3
Rock-based geopolymer, poly(sialate-multisiloxo) 1< Si:Al5
Fly ash-based geopolymer
Ferro-sialate-based geopolymer
Phosphate-based geopolymer, AlPO4-based geopolymer
Organic-mineral geopolymer
@@BillBird2111 we have actually lost quite a few technological techniques.
off the top of my head, there was one with concrete, i think roman concrete, theyve only just worked out and back engineered, but for many years we had no idea why roman concrete lasted much longer and is stronger than modern day mortar, but they believe they have finally cracked it
yet there are still other lost technologies, such as greek fire, a closely guarded secret recipe that enabled things to burn in water, useful for marine warfare, they only can speculate what it was made from
expand your knowledge before outright calling something BS, just saying, not everything is known, information is often lost and forgotten
In essence, a shuttered lean mortar mix using an aggregate and lime combination to create the desired colouration and finish of natural stone.
This makes sense, also a simple rope and pulley system would've made sending the limestone mix up the pyramid easy. And if two people were compacting with ram more quicker. Several teams going at once all round the pyramid.
Geologists know the material isn't man made.
Maybe they had the simple buccket brigades passing up the mortar baskets.
@bob bobber That's what I said.
@@davism3800 limestone?
@@HybridBlueDream What are you asking?
The most logical explanation
The arrogant pyramids specialists on suicide watch 😂 this is the most realistic and scientific explanation ever.
Then why did they quarry them in block shapes? Why bother? You guys there is a million things wrong with this theory.
This is the most likely scenario. People always say we dont know, we absolutely know how they were built!
I'm yet not sure I understand why fossils are in the concrete slabs that are supposedly made from molds. If these slabs are made from molds into which some mixture was poured, the grounding up of the materials should have broken up any remaining fossils
I enjoyed this video very much, and have read Prof. Davidovits' book with great interest. The evidence appears to be there in plain sight, that a type of cement was used at Giza at some time in the distant past. I've also read Christopher Dunn's books, and his arguments concerning advanced machining at Giza are very strong. I think as modern investigative techniques get better and better, the ideas held by the "mainstream" archaeologists and Egyptologists will slowly but surely become redundant and outdated.
whats Prof. Davidovits' book called please?
"mainstream" archaeologists and Egyptologists will never change. There are too busy hiding the truth and making up His-story.
This is good thinking outside of the box. This method would surely have saved much labour and time with the casing blocks after installing the immense internal supporting stones. I liked the process of mixing the batch.
with every new generation I think we're discovering more & getting closer to the truth about all things once lost to Antiquity .
Wow uploaded 14 years ago!!
Tell me about it, whers this been in my life :-) Would have killed for this data 5 years back :-p
i'm quickly becoming a fan of the geopolymer argument. now can we reproduce the "red granite" from Egypt and the "H blocks" from Peru? Davidovits tested those as well and concluded they were geopolymer. i want to see this all reproduced to appease the scientific method crowd.'
K2019 may be right, it would make more sense than copper chisels.
I disagree with the ending of K2019. Solar lenses may have been used for cutting but the Granite was formed via a chemical geopolymer process.
H blocks are located in bolivia my friend. Tiwanacu is in bolivia not in Perú.
@@jackparsons390 K20l9 was entertainment 🤣
This was 14 years ago. What do those blocks look like today. I'm betting they show very heavy weathering already
don't forget the whole pyramid was covered in a protective plaster covering and painted..or course this would have lasted a good period of time before the heat/wind/rain eroded it leaving the geopolymer blocks to slowly succumb to the elements!
I'd like to see how many fossils they found - perhaps the crushing process wasn't as efficient as we might insist upon today.
The Romans used a basic concrete in the Colusseum - it's extremely durable stuff.
if you watch the video and listen, they clearly say that the aggregate (material used for the blocks) required NO CRUSHING... later on they sampled the blocks they made, then they took them to a labratory and the lab couldn't tell that it was artificial limestone, the lab thought it was natural limestone using the highest modern technology
they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
作为一个中国工程师来说这个方法完全没问题，我们的祖先在4000年前也用过类似的技术。
Can you recommend any texts on the subject?
to me having studied the ancient monolithic structures closely, this was not only eye opening but jaw dropping. finally i now know how the pyramids were made fantastic lets put to be the aliens, slaves, ramps and any magic hollywood go eat a brick, this is excellent and i am glad to have witnessed this miracle finally ... now i know blessing to all involved kudos.
Remember the people who told you they used copper chisels are the same people who tell you that they are 'ancient'
As a student, how would you explain aswan quarry obelisk? A google search on it shows block shape stones being carved out?
Or do you reckon they scrapped the limestone to then remixed it to mold? Curious if that also explains the rose granite blocks in the kings chamber?
I mean if you have seen real granite that thing is natural and pretty hard to break apart let alone being produced like a concrete.
How do you explain the precision of the math and that it’s true north? The pyramid is an exact (with the tiniest human errors) scale of the Earth
Think for a moment... you wouldn't stack artificial blocks after they were made - they would be cast in place. Davidovits theory is most compelling regarding the development from mud-bricks to ammalgamated stone.
Professor is THE BEST ❤️
I miss typed a word up there " maybe they mixed real stones with artificial ones " but the idea looks ok to me.I am no archiologist but i lived by the pyramids in egypt and I have seen them and they go me always thinking how the hell they built all that ( i was only loking for one pyramid) and when i thought of how many pyramids there are,and the amount of hard work involved,none of the other theories satisfied my curiousity.Thanks
I've seen the wooden forms stuck in the rock, suggesting some of it can't be rock.
What about the fact that the inner stones are made of granite. Also if you look at the stones on the side of the great entrance they are all at large angles and not laid flat. How could you use this method if the stones was not laying flat?
Molds?
@JakobeOG no
i totally agree, it wouldn't be strong enough to hold up structures as big as pyramids. besides, the pyramids were only lined with Limestone blocks, their inner blocks were not limestone. so whatever way you look at it, this isn't a likely solution.
And what makes you so sure of this? It's mainly compressive load in the lower parts of the pyramid. The material should be perfectly fine to hold that. And to my knowledge, there were only a couple of massive granite blocks in the center. So this still explains 95%+ of the material used.
@@hansdietrich1496 dude my comment was from 15 years ago.
@@Clint945 welcome back, how is life after all?
wrong the inner blocks are limestone the outer thin casing is granite
they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
I don’t get it?
it says 123 comments but I only see three? And they’re all from a few weeks ago but this thing came out 14 years ago? What’s going on?
Thanks. Most interesting. It's the first time I hear something that makes sense.
Wow! Eureka, so obvious! This technique is not unlike the "tu lou" method of ancient China. Truth is always stranger than fiction. Great video.
Outstandig and impressive presentation to you and everyone that one way or another collaborated to make this document and share it with us my most expensive thanks, well done guys, from Puerto Rico to you guys....Jesus Torres.
Can you get some funding, go to Egypt, and build a mini-pyramid to show that it can be done?
Logical explanation 👍
In Al-Quran (Islamic Holy Book) said 1400 years ago that Pharaoh build the pyramid (tower) was using "baked clay" instead of limestones (baked clay turn into rock limestone after thousand of year process ) and I believe is true because there is no such technology at that time In how to pull and lift a heavy rock limestone.
Many Scientist thought that pyramid were built by pull and lifting the limestone using temporary water canal and hang it with wood in the water (Buoyancy weight) or rail tunnel to transport the limestone rock from bottom to the top. It's an insane method and if it's true the people in egypt will build the other things with this "insane method" and also people in egypt can create a heavy duty wire-rope and make a good tools to cut precision the limestones as well.
This is my opinion: The pharaoh was instructing Haman (Architect ministry of ancient Egypt) and their slaves to made giant statue or big bricks from mud clay and arranged them as base foundation, after that when the stone molds were still wet they did the engraving (Hieroglif) at the big stone walls and when they want to continue the work by making them higher they burnt it first and repeat it step by step until the top of pyramid done.
Scientist just need to prove that mixed material of "baked clay" can be turn into the limestone after three thousand years process
more bul***t you could never manage to write. Congratulations!
What about the unfinished obelisk at the Aswan quarry in Egypt? It's clear proof that someone had the technology and know-how to carve gigantic blocks straight out of a granite deposit. Not baked clay, but real granite. We know they were doing this because the unfinished obelisk is proof that was left behind. We still don't know how they did it, or how they transported it, or who actually built the pyramid structure.
@@BillBird2111 Obelisks represented the fallice of Osiris(King Nimrod). It had to be 1 whole piece because the myth was 13 pieces were dismembered and only the fallice or obelisk was missing.
The precursor to later concrete used by the romans... Makes sense if you put history in a time frame with simple thinking.😉
If I'm not mistaken the sphinx was supposedly built BEFORE the pyramids of Giza. There are many other pyramids built before those at Giza but only the Giza pyramids came out perfect. Thank you
Egyptian government doesn't like this lol
Alright, how did they make the granite blocks?
Same way
I would say they didn't. if you use the above method for 99% of the material in it that drastically reduces the work load and increases the speed. It's one thing to cut and haul 1% of the rock in it. Another to cut and haul 100% of it
The weakest point of this theory is assumption, that they were technologically primitive.
Fascinating!!!
I think they would have tooled the joins to clean them up to look crisp before the blocks cured, but otherwise, it seems on the money.
Sounds good but.... what about the granite?
they knew by their calculations they would never have enough stone, hence making this polymer after having used up the granite for a more solid base perhaps!
if you use the above method for 99% of the material in it that drastically reduces the work load and increases the speed. It's one thing to cut and haul 1% of the rock in it (for special locations such as the kings chamber) another to cut and haul 100% of it and be cutting, transporting, hauling up the pyramid, and placing a rock every five minutes for 20 years.
granite can be made too, but probably needs an acid not a base
Looks like a winner !
It says there's 140 comments but I can only see 3.
Anyone here know wherebi can get Joseph Davistovits original book, they built the pyramids ? I cannot find it anywhere 😫
17 years ago ...that's long time on u tube
Indeed!
And not even a 1mil views
But you see the evidence where the stones were quarried!
Evidence that some stone was quarried is not evidence that no blocks were made in this way. There is no logical connection whatsoever. For all we know the quarrying and the pyramid could have been done by completely different civilizations thousands of years apart.
Correction, you see evidence where stones have been quarried. Nobody has ever correctly matched the stones in the pyramids to the quarry. If fact they tried and failed so it was conveniently sidestepped.
🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ maybe those 4 bc.. but nowadays we know pyramids is 8-12k old :) when you look hieroglyphs you see wich one is old 12k and wich one is old 6k years... those who are 6k years old is ugly and it's made with colours... the older one are cast into a stone :)
Scott Adams brought me here. I've always known some walls in the area were made by stacking bags of concrete type stuff and letting it dry. I was always told the blocks were obviously not cement. What possible reason would a foreign government dependent on tourism have to lie about this?
One of the problems with this theory is that most of the core blocks of the Great Pyramid are not at all of the rectilinear & uniform shape of the blocks they cast in this demonstration. The actual Great Pyramid core blocks are quite irregular and of many different sizes and shapes (look at any photo of the Great Pyramid). The size also varies from course to course of the Great Pyramid, some courses are 15" & some are 24" in height. A geologist and a simple visual analysis by a qualified geologist or stone mason would settle this question very quickly. Also, the ancient Egyptians did not have lime, nor use it in their mortar. It takes a lot of heat to make lime, Egypt had very little fuel (mostly acacia trees) to use to make lime. Lime was not used in Egyptian masonry construction until the Roman era, roughly 300 BC, and 2000 years after the Great Pyramid was built. Also, the remnants of a vast quarry adjacent to the GP has been identified as the source of the core blocks. I'd go with the Alien Levitation theories before I'd give this one much credence.
Yep. I kept thinking, what about the quarries and left over blocks with errors showing bad cuts
From the FAQ GPI: "The theory is now well-known by the public since 1988 (first publication of the book in english), but presented earlier in official egyptology congresses since 1979. The Geopolymer Institute website exists since 1996 and, since the beginning, the theory was exposed in detail. Since then, new scientific papers, new books, new videos, new webpages have been published with the latest updates. Nevertheless, most opponents are always expressing their opinions based on hearsays, preconceived ideas, clichés, and are not taking 10 minutes of their precious time to read what is presented here. Some of them are publishing rebuttals using “wrong” arguments that Davidovits’ has never raised instead of quoting his work (for example, we do not claim to crush stones as aggregates, a useless exhausting effort, but instead asserting the use of weathered or eroded stones). A parody of science since some studies were made on “fake” pyramid samples. See section #5 below and the page: Deep misleading publications by geologists. These published sloppy papers are taken for serious references by the opponents of the re-agglomerated theory. You will be disappointed by the fact that this misleading behavior represents the vast majority of the opponents. Why? Because the artificial stone theory is the truth, they don’t know how to counter it. They are missing the big picture.
"2There is stone everywhere. Why bother to make a concrete?
This is common sense, isn’t it? You are thinking of the use of stones with a modern mind, in terms of architecture. For 3000 years long, Egyptians used stones (whether man-made or carved) only for religious purposes: temples, tombs and statues. Where are the houses, where are the palaces, where are the garrisons? They were built in crude bricks. During the pyramids time, it was forbidden to carve stones. Man-made stone bears a specific religious meaning related to the creation of life. Read more about this topic in the extended abstract under the “Religious context“.
If it is not convincing enough:
Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth."
many mould-makers, easy to confuse cubits and centimetres!
@@henrikonnou7466 Sorry, your "facts" are not at all convincing. If the blocks were cast why are they so irregular and of different sizes - in the same course and in different courses. Also, why didn't they use the same "liquid stone" as mortar between the irregular blocks? The mortar they used has been examined many times throughout modern archeology and has been determined to be a non-lime, mud mortar. I'm curious to know your background: Have you ever mixed a trough of cement or mortar? Have you ever laid a wall of bricks, block or stone?
@@willyboccecolla7926 " If the blocks were cast why are they so irregular and of different sizes - in the same course and in different courses. " Blocks are in the same course, aren't they ? What's the point ?
"The mortar they used has been examined many times throughout modern archeology and has been determined to be a non-lime, mud mortar. " Mud mortar ? About the artificial limestone, as you wrote in your previous message : "A geologist and a simple visual analysis by a qualified geologist or stone mason would settle this question very quickly". But it is written in the FAQ of the Geopolymer Institute :
"Scientific analysis:
Now that more and more scientists agree and support the theory, some have decided to carry on researches without my help and without requesting any approval from egyptologists, so in total independence from both parties.
The analysis methods used today by geologists are not relevant. They cannot make a difference between a natural and a synthetic mineral. Indeed, the molecule of a mineral is by essence always the same, whether it is natural or synthetic, otherwise it would be another molecule, so another mineral. To show the artificial nature of the material, they need to work with more powerful methods (analysis by synchrotron, transmission and electronic scan microscopy SEM TEM, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Paleomagnetism, Particle Induced Gamma-Ray Emission, Particle Induced X-Ray Emission, X-ray fluorescence, X-ray Diffraction). These tools are seldom used in this situation. Studies have been made, and all show that the pyramid stones are artificial."
So, did you see the video above ? Any "qualified geologist or stone mason" could not see the difference between natural or artificial limestone (geopolymer).
"I'm curious to know your background". I would ask you the same thing.
i think these guys are right ,from the looks of it it looks e-z to do ( easy enough to be done so many times for so many pyramids )the only test left is the solidity test ,if those stones could support that much weight .or maybe the mized those artificial stones with real ones too
actually, compacted "cement" as they propose is definately not strong enough to maintain that kind of weight no matter how much it is dried - take the mega-ton weight of each block from the very top all the way down to the second row from the base, and there would be NO WAY that the foundation could support it - it would crumble like sand.
The duh moment. I believe you are probably right.
That's not true cause the pyramids a still standing using geopolymer concrete
Cement isn't but certain types of geopolymer being made now are extremely strong compared to regular concrete
It is actually is the most elegant explanation i know, though I wonder, is it possible to create a stone like this with the same chemical composition as a real pyramid block has.
And if you can build like this wouldn't you want to build everything like this
excellent... one of the better theories out there
Excellent. It is possible that granitic sand added together wigh the inicial hydrated limestone increases the hardness of the composite.
Only granite blocks might have lifted or moulded also.
In 3000 years will people look at concrete foundations and think they were carved from stone? We have expensive cut stone and we also have cheaper method poured stone. Of note* We've improved concrete a lot in the last 30 years. 1" thick concrete countertops are a recent technology. We're still figuring out why roman concrete is so damn good.... So yes, I think the bulk of the stones were poured and the granite was probably cut. It explains the scale and the how much better... But not cut with copper tools. That and much of the "scientific community answers " don't hold up. One must remember, the Catholic Church condemned Galileo because his theory "went against the science of the day". They actually were quoting the experts in their ruling!
of course this is just for the casing stones of the pyramids, which for the most part do not exist anymore, correct?
I've heard about this. It's pretty interesting.
Ever heard of Raising Stone 1 - Paul Hai's Racks & Pinions Theory from Australia?
j'aime ca! i am a stone mason...i agree finaly this make sense
Good theory, but what about the granite?
shipped in from he the downstream quarries
Same method
Let’s say that this IS true. How do you explain the information about the cosmos, the encoding of the speed of light (in both feet and meters), the equatorial circumference of the earth, the polar radius of the earth, the average height of land on earth, and and and…
All being encoded into the great pyramid?
How do you explain the knowledge of the pyramid being made of material, over aquafers, using a gold capstone to turn this pyramid (and the others around the globe)… to create a super conductor capable of transmitting wireless energy (like Tesla’s tower)?
This pyramid is telling us that we have ancient technology that is lost… that is only now starting to be rediacovered
Just read the Bible. We know fallen angel gods have been screwing over humanity for centuries. Of course they had technology. Remember we are living after a massive mud-flood wiped out the last great advanced civilization.
You missed the point, they cld have past cement filled baskets in a chain & caste the blocks in situe. In French climate blocks took 4 days to dry. It is now 40 deg c in Egypt, & only rains on average 1 day a year which keeps the ground rock hard. Heiroglyphs are from a later period.
What! This isn't aliens. Everbody knows aliens did it. 😂😂😂
Well done chowbelly. Very smart response.
Interesting, but that is not what the ancient art depicts. Also, at the giza and elsewhere, you can see the places where the stones were cut. Notches at the bottom indicate where wooden machines may have aided in the lifting of the blocks. Were the blocks poured, you better hope there is no rain until they cure.
There are still granite blocks, that needed lifting and cutting. Also, maybe not all blocks might have been cast in place, e.g. the angled ones on the surface.
@@hansdietrich1496 they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
and do you really believe that your limestone will stand 5000 or 6000 years???
The real pyramid was built in napoleon times
Screw how the blocks were place for a minute, I just want to know how they stacked it!
they cast (rammed) the blocks in place, no stacking
This guy figured out the secret .
Seems logical to me.
A very nice research, Well Done.
Thanks , this one is logical fact to believe how pyramid born..
That last line was a Shots fired 😂
what is the original name of EGYPT?
so were fossils mixed back in so they would be like the pyramid stones?
fossils are in the mixture.
Amazing.
Btw...and how come egyp. heroglyphs dont mention a single thing about building the pyramids, but they metion every other little thing that happend during their history
they do, that's how he discovered this (partly) he found the heiroglyphs describing the process, read all of his books, he talks about it
2020
the only other way to have huge perfectly fitted matched blocks would be to lap them in. To wiggle and grind them together bit by bit until they were perfect.
You could hardly move a 50 to 500 ton block let alone machine perfect faces and make numbers of them.
Packing forms and molds with "primitive" tools is the only plausible explanation.
No way they could lap or set a 50 ton block without breaking corners and edges off of limestone.
And yet ...
Did you even see the fucking video?
@@meinkek7896 yes I fucking did.
@@seetheforest and yet they did. Did you even see the video?
@@meinkek7896 I think the theory is just a theory. I don't think they moved, lifted, and machined the huge blocks. Not humans without machines. They were cast and molded in place not lifted and relifted dozens or hundreds of times and lapped in. You can disagree but it doesn't make it more plausible. I just can't see it. Not one single chip or broken edge anywhere..
how did the egyptians know the coordinates of north south east west and how did they get to match with orions belt
But what about the aliens?
The aliens(fallen angels) probably taught them how to do that. But that was in Babylon when Nimrod and his fallen angel goofballs built a goofy tower.
Genesis 11:3
"They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar."
No. That's fake news@@ECLECTRIC_EDITS
The theory is all good until you realize that testing showed that the blocks used for the pyramids were cut out of a quarry that they have littlerly found that was used to get the stones.
Explain the air bubbles in the stones discovered by simple scanners at the time
Part 2
Who told me ? no one, but if u reserched well enought u will find that the same kind of Pyramids' Rocks only Exist on South of egypt... and guys for your General Information, there are more than 80 Pyramid in Egypt, not only 3..
But what about the granite blocks?
They melted granite and poured it into perfect casts which left them with minimal abrasive work
Other experiments have shown that they can be cut by using sand to erode it slowly as you saw it off with tools, essentially making the sand the cutting edge of the tool, it takes time, but it is nothing that can't be done by just trowing people at it
@@Surgeeon That's how metal works, not rock.
they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
Nice theory, but it doesn’t explain how they built the pharaoh chamber with the 40 tonnes hard granite stones in the middle of the pyramid.
same method
@@meinkek7896 But the chamber has different materiel, it has a beautiful granit walls and ceiling.
Are you saying that this material turns to granit after let say 5000 years?
@@besttech3216 No such thing as 5k years. All lies. Pyramid was built around 1k to 600 years ago. Our humanity homo sapiens is recent.
@@meinkek7896 600 years ago???
My town is older that the pyramids then.
And the homosapiens discovered recently in Morocco 300 000 years old.
I don’t know if you are trolling or not, either ways I wish you to have a nice day!
Not everything was casted, if you read further davidovits explains this. The granite blocks where shipped and dragged in place. The limestone blocks mixture was made at local basins near the great pyramids...
4000 years ago the scenery was much greener near the Pyramides as we see today...
You can see these days the Sahara is getting larger and larger still...
Entonces cuanto tardaron para hacer las pirámides
Need the full version i know the original had the lab results
might be true who knows, but what do u base ur facts on?
This STILLLLL doesn't explain how they got em up there.
Lol. Use your brain and think. They molded these blocks one above another
they didnt "get them up there" they walked up and then made them in place, they were cast in place on top of and next to each other, that's why the joints are perfectly tight and even bend like the next block exactly
The mold-boards were machine cut!
Great, so the aliens taught Egyptians how to make this?
Aliens = fallen angels = anunnaki
Except they found at least one unfinished stone where the cut diverted, so the granite block was left unfinished. That's right. Granite. Limestone was found to be both cast and cut. The deep hole in the ground just outside the pyramids with the staircase to nowhere is the wet hole where a giant diamond disc spun half out of the ground. This is how stones were cut, and they can't do that up high, so they had to use alien technology to move the stones up, because there were not enough people to move the stones up. Further, why would anyone think they need people or boats to move stones when we already know the structure sits right on the ring found by Jim Alison. See his report on the prehistoric alignment of world wonders. I think it's 14 megalithic sites are all part of the circle. Also, a survey stone was found on the coast north of Giza, which is far below the horizon line. Curvature of the earth keeps it from being seen except from around a mile up. You don't get that convenient atmospheric distortion like they do over water in those flat earther videos. The mere existence of any structure on this circle line, proves the builders had space travel!!!
what about the massive granite blocks?
Same way
they can make granite the same way but using an acid, he showed this in south america at puma punku, not granite but andesite, an acid was used to melt the stone materials together
yeah, and all the laborers had medical and dental and had a union making sure they got 2 15 minute breaks and a lunch hour. Come on man, you're confusing pizza with pyramids. Italians did some pretty cool things but they definitely didn't build the Eygptian pyramids.
Hermes Trismegisto likes this. Me too.
in fact, the pharoh who was SUPPOSED to built it by modern scholars, claimed he actually maintained the pyramid instead. why would he claim the credit if he was the one?
The Giza plateau overlooks a large river, called the Nile.
I heard from a secret society it was a form of concrete
I love the way scientists and experts try to explain how the pyramids were created..its like listening to creationists trying to explain dinosaur bones
Um is it just me or do I see a commercial application here? All those ingrediants are DIRT cheap--- heh... well, actually they are dirt :) This could be a replacement form of concrete... but much much cheaper!