Dearest Simon, I love to watch your presentations. Yes, our neighbors (coughs, excuse me, neighbours) to our north may complain a tad about you, however, they also claim to have the better beer, though, that would be best saved for another letter and presentation...Simon presenting the five best beers of the Three North America Countries. A Simon Whistler and Irish People Try combination. but, I digress I love when you get one quarter to one third into a presentation and mumble, something to the effect, I need to pre-read these. I would like to air quote every history program that I have watched on UA-cam and cable (specifically History Channel) 'the stone and poured concrete will last centuries, if not millennia.' That being said, why do the humans that inhabit the earth presently believe they are the only ones that were capable of the generation of electricity. I was watching a presentation of Aramu Muru, located near lake Titicaca. It was described as being two things, 1) odd that a tribe could transport stones weighing countless tonnes (I believe that is the proper term for a metric ton) hundreds of miles over rocky and steep cliffs, making the transport difficult, if not seemingly impossible. And 2) why and how was there a lake next to Aramu Muru that molecularly the same combination of sand as what the rocks that made up the Aramu Muru, and essentially the same size as the final effort of the rocks that make up the Aramu Muru. Another item that all the history programmes I have watched drilled into my head was that metals (iron, copper, etc) corrode over time. For some reason, these channels and presentations limit the abilities of the individuals constructing the items they are talking about; The Pyramids, the stone structure at Aramu Muru, etc. I guess I am using the Occam's razor theory. One of the presentations of the Aramu Muru panned the whole village that made up the mountain village in Peru. It showed a room about 10 foot high, 11 foot deep, 11.5 to 12 foot across. In fact, it showed two of them next to each other. The rooms are often looked at and given question as to their purpose. I paused it and looked up induction furnaces from the 1929 period, and, OMG, they looked very similar. Too similar in ways. Why is it so hard for people to consider the idea that people from that time, an estimated between 700 AD to pre-3000 years ago, and further back, were in fact advanced enough to have electricity and to make a heating system that utilized the induction furnace, or just understood how to generate enough heat to melt said substances. Life Without Humans, a really interesting program series from The History Channel, shows how most items that are iron go into a crumbled pile of iron oxide after five to nine centuries of nonuse and exposure. And who says the bowls used for the furnaces corroded? Maybe they were transported and used again, leaving behind the parts of the procedure that have the least impact on production. It was hot enough to melt steel in the 1920s, it could be hot enough to melt the sand that was poured into moulds to make the Aramu Muru and Pyramids. If glazed pottery existed in that time period and both melted steel (1510c melting point) existed and glass (sand melts at 1700c) existed, why would it be so difficult for the sand in both to have been melted, then poured into place? I would also like to bring up a point that, when studying the pyramids, researches found oval bubbles that they couldn't explain. Small, rice shaped, bubbles that were present when the melting of sand to recreate rock were similar to the small bubbles found in the rocks in the pyramids. Sorry, but, that is a huge "bang one's head against the wall until your theory fits with what happened" rather than looking at the theory presented and the end results. I love how scientists refuse to take suggestions, no matter how plainly or politely presented. Thanks for this, btw, I am enjoying it.
And there are some civilisations that make them look modern. EG the egyptiand were around 4000 years ago. The civilisation that resulted in Jericho? 11,000. Also if you are talking about the Greeks. Which Greeks do you mean? Classical or Ancient? The Ancient Greek civilisation collapsed with the Bronze Age Collapse in 1173BC. The "Greek" civilisation before them was 7000 years old.
Almost. Alexander the Great died 2343 years ago. The Old Kingdom of Egypt collapsed around 1800 years before Alexander. Still pretty unfathomable timescales.
People tend to forget that humans living 4000 years ago were the same humans as living today. They had their own geniuses like Einstein or Tesla. People whose curiosity matched intelligence. People capable of discovering brilliant solutions to problems. They weren't monkeys. Those were intelligent, thinking humans, just without the gift of 4000 years of accumulating knowledge and technology.
Yes, but their achievements are impressive given the fact that so much of their time and energy went into not starving. Einstein wouldn't have published his theories if he had to spend 16 hours a day farming.
@@neurodegenerat5221 today, so many minds are not challenged, we have computers, calculators, and of course Google... how many people under 40 do you know that can properly make and count back change without a computer telling them what the change should be?
It's weird how so many people seem to be interpreting this ancient concrete theory as a suggestion the Great Pyramids somehow aren't an amazing achievement.
Once you find out about Tartaria & The Mud Floods Etc all of this starts to make complete sense, the people that built these structures & buildings harvesting electricity from the Ether, NOT by slaves and low IQ ancient people but by highly advanced humans that we're not told about and this history is hidden and we get lies hinting towards some Aliens, the Reality is the Tartarian Empire and using free energy. We are living in a more barbaric dirty electrical society the ancient people did not. Research this truth, we also don't live on a Globe in Infinite space but thats another Truth for your soul to seek.
@@Carmichael_ what's you're research, because there's a few basic things you can do to observe the curvature of the earth, additionally you can't have free energy, there's a limited (yes astronomical, but still limited) amount of energy we have access too, think about rolling a ball down a hill, it takes more effort to get the ball to the top, than the ball rolling down generates Additionally if they were that advanced it would have Been recorded, if not by the people's (I highly doubt that, recording is a common human trait) then explorers would have recorded it, yall seem to forget that archeologists just really like dusty old rocks, and old human remains they aren't some super level conspirists
@@Carmichael_ Bullshit. These kinds of conspiracy theories are just as damaging as the Ancient Aliens garbage, and just as ludicrous. You are talking about Atlantis levels of bullshit. Ancient people didn't use electricity "pulled from the Ether," whatever that means.
"To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting" (8:50) How would it be an insult to suggest Egyptians used brains over brawns in order to build these magnificent structures? Their ingenuity and dedication remains as commendable.
Hawaz and people with similar goals and agendas dismiss the theory for two obvious reasons: 1. they desperately want the pyramids to be of Egyptian origin so they get the credit for building them; 2. their ancestors are responsible for the partial destruction of the pyramid's outer layers which were used to construct buildings in Cairo. Lesson one in the act of lies and deceit is by praising yourself and by always putting the blame on someone else.
@@SCEPSIS-zw9wv or just so they can milt an crazy amount of money from visitors by foreshadowing an idea that pyramids were build by aliens or superior knowledge of ancient Egyptians Because when you think about it there is just "concrete" Nothing is mysterious and magical anymore and doesnt attrack visitor
@@kristialb2680 its not concrete its limestone and the limestone decay on the sphinx proved that it wasn’t only a few thousand years old its in fact 12 thousand years old at the least. Also all methods we’ve tried simulating that they could have used to build them are all false or they just wanted to absolutely build these pyramids despite how fucking tedious and back breaking it would be EVEN for the slaves. They’d all die before the whole thing is finished so they either cycled them out group by groups or they just tryna find a way to explain the pyramids that make sense and fit the narrative of how school taught us how they were built and how the government wants us to be limited on our knowledge of human history for some fucked up reason. They want you guys to be dumb and you all clearly are misguided . Well not all but most
They probably put the quarried stone down and were like, "jesus man, that shit was ridiculous, and the aliens aren't returning our phone calls. There's got to be a better way to do this."
8:45 That Egyptian guy said that believing cement was used was "idiotic and insulting", but gives no explanation why. He is the one being idiotic and insulting. He is probably against the idea because maybe he fears it'll take some of the mystique away, and somehow hurt tourism.
@@brando8248 only for the granit portions, everything else that mainstream science uses comes from Egyptian scientists that haven't changed their stance in like 70 years . All tests are done by them otherwise it's illegal by Egyptian law for along time now.
@@brando8248 also givin human error the pyramids would be crooked in one way or another no matter how perfect the craftsman. Now multiply that by 10000s of craftsman that built the pyramids. The human error would be exponentially impossible not to happen without a mold to make things far more perfect. Even if they cut the stone from the quarrys they would lose shape being moved so far, so possibly maybe the concrete was added to the outside of these cut stones to make them more perfect, or they were just made to perfection sometimes when it couldn't be cutt perfectly
@Max Powers That's a common problem, a lot of "experts" DON'T know what they're talking about in a great many fields, and rely upon others just knowing a little bit less.
@@LeoH3L1 Being an "Expert" just means that person has mastered the accepted "truths" about the subject matter. Anything that challenges the accepted truths will of course confound such a person.
Actually they have good reason to argue against it since some of the blocks used still have the points where they were snapped off at the quarry. They are unfinished and definate proof that at least some of them were quarried. I am not arguing against the concrete idea i am just pointing out that their counter argument has merit and i am sure they have more reasons than just that 1 that i know of.
@@mattking993 I'm assuming you are talking about the blocks found at the quarry. This could just as easily be written off as them breaking the blocks off for transportation to the processing plant so long as the "concrete" blocks are not missing ingredients that the mined blocks contain. You can add things to concrete but you can't remove . The reason you would mine blocks and process them elsewhere is to keep your mine clear for mining.
@@greybone777 at one point there were likely forests there tho... and now there aren't... could just have been massive sloths eating them, or pyramids.
@@greybone777 Correct. They were used among other things to peel plywood to make forms, aka molds for the pour. Anybody of a certain age living around Puget Sound is familiar with log booms. Floating a bunch of logs from Lebanon to the Nile would not be a problem. In fact, it would be a jolly pleasant ride.
I originally found this theory in a 3.5 hour documentary on UA-cam titled "The Great K Pyramid," or something like that. I then ordered Davidovitts' book "Why the Pharaohs Built the Pyramids with Fake Stones." Great read. Not only does he break down the chemical aspect, but analyzes from mythological standpoints as well. Hieroglyphics were considered as well, as it's unknown whether or not each symbol had one or a variety of meanings. Perhaps the best evidence in my mind was his recreation of various sized blocks using custom wooden moulds. Upon filling the moulds one of the larger moulds began to leak, leaving a distinct crack in the corner. After concluding his experiment he found similar cracks on similar stones found on the Khufu pyramid. I am sold on Davidovitts' theory, but as for the granite I'm unsure for now.
@@knight2255 Not at all, you just keep boarding it up and keep pouring on top, you can see the similar shapes they used on walls, the more you interlock the blocks differently, the stronger it is. Pyramids, you just keep them a similar shape, self leveling and just finish them precisely at the corners.
@@producermind9030 Davidovits has his own video on the pyramid on youtube "Building the Pyramids of Egypt with Artificial Stones" his explanation for real looking granite is that it's real granite from a quarry. Some dismiss his theory based on the assumption that his claim is all material is reaglomoraeted, ignoring that this is not what he is saying. @knight2255 perfect precision is only necessary for the outer layer if you want the smooth surface that was intended, filling up everything else with less precision makes sense as it's simply unnecessary from a builders perspective. An indication if random artificial and random natural shapes could be possible based on the precision of the seams, but I have so far not seen data on this.
Because it's plausible and relatively easy. It suggests that ancient Egyptians were in fact NOT capable of superhuman feats, but just very resourceful. People don't like it when you expose the man behind the curtain.
Well, modern concrete is only expected to stay sound for 200 to 300 years. So accepting that an ancient concrete would last thousands is hard for modern engineers to swallow. This despite the fact Roman concrete 2,000 plus years old has been found still intact.
@@bluelionsage99 That said I think I read/heard somewhere that the recipe for roman concrete was rediscovered recently, maybe we'll be making a return to form on long-lasting concrete structures
@@bluelionsage99 It seems that in the case of the pyramids, it was not so much ancient concrete but a method to reconstitute crushed limestone back into solid stone blocks. The aggregate and the cement are one in the same thing, unlike concrete where the aggregate is a separate material bound by the cement.
It makes it more impressive, as it's a more elegant, sophisticated solution to a problem rather than using brute force. It doesn't mean the theory is right or wrong, of course.
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 This video seemed to explain that the granite was quarried while the limestone was poured. I did not hear a question or comment about the lower stones not poured but you may be right. I have never been to the pyramids nor am I a chemist or geologist of any type to be able to tell them apart anyway. and actually, to have seams is just saying they were poured individually and not all at the same time. The mystery continues because it was never written how they were constructed and the fact they didn't write it down might indicate it was a normal and well known practice at that time to which way they did it. Still a fun mystery to ponder... =D
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 The granite work, however, is a tiny fraction of the other stonework in the pyramid, in both quantity of material and hours of labor required to shape and place them. You save an enormous amount of time and treasure by just doing the granite work and pouring the limestone blocks. I think if a quarry could be found nearby that had natural limestone of the same composition as the pyramids' limestone it would prove the conventional theory. However an inability to find natural limestone in the area that matches the composition of the pyramid limestone lends strong credence to the theory it was poured. And the kicker is it isn't be some new and amazing technology the Egyptians alone had and disappeared with the pyramid-building Pharoahs, humans had been using concrete for thousands of years before the pyramids were built. Why wouldn't they use concrete for the blocks and dress up the interior with granite? look around your neighborhood or maybe even your own home, builders and architects do the very same thing to this very day. : )
Even if it was pored concrete, it is still an amazing feat of engineering that modern society should strive for. Where I live we can't get a patch of road concrete to last a winter.
"And Pharaoh said to his people: “I have not known a god for you other than myself; so Haman, light me a fire to bake clay so that I could build a rise high enough, maybe I see Moses’ god whom I think is a liar.” [Quran 28.38] How could an illiterate man who lived 1400 years ago have known that those uppermost blocks were made from baked clay? (Ancient Concrete) How did he know the Pyramids at all were of such great height?
@@naeemkashmir722 Clay is nothing like concrete made out of limestone. You could just as well say that clay and modern concrete are the same. Besides, some of Muhammed's companion were very litterate, like Harith ibn Kalada, who studied medicine at a school named Jundishapur.
@@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear its not the same as modern cincrere but it has comcrete strength. There are many studies to show this. Its acknowledged by western sources. Pls research rather than being blind. Hhaha do you know what the houses were made of in arabia during the 7th century? They were not made of concrete lol so what ie your point? Why would anyone in the middle of a desert in 7th century Arabia care about Egypt?? Do you know that the pyramid knowledge was losr to time til the rosetta stone. Even the Quran answers the pyramid text directly if you do a little research.
While Davidovitz's hypothesis is intriguing it, along with others as you noted, suffers from significant weaknesses. 1) While the blocks may be "compositionally identical" to the local limestone (he suggests this as evidence of the raw material) this fails to eliminate that the blocks were actually quarried from this material. 2) Opal is a component of both the local limestone and the blocks. Crushing the limestone and casting it into blocks would not only crush the opal, but the cast blocks would be dissociated from the groundwater geochemical conditions necessary to form "new" opal, so this would need to be explained. 3) The native limestone is full of a one-cell, marine fossil Foraminifera called Numulites, which produced a flat, coiled shell ranging in size from a small button to a half dollar. These lived in seas 55-35 million years ago. Numulitic limestone comprises most of the blocks in the pyramids. Although Numulites are large, being composed of calcium carbonate, they are not hard, and would be readily crushed by the grinding process needed to make cement. They are intact in the pyramids' blocks by the millions. 4) Petrographic thin sections (slices of rock glued to microscope slides and ground so thin polarized light will pass through) made from pieces of pyramid rock show intact microtextures that require varying pore-water chemistries to form. These would not develop from a single pour and subsequent exposure to meteoric water. (Oil companies did extensive exploration on the Giza Plateau back in the 1950's). 5) The compelling presence of granite was rather dismissed as "only constituting a small percent of the rock in the pyramid". While true, being a very hard, intrusive igneous rock having large, intact crystals, is incapable of being crushed and cast. The Egyptians' ability to quarry it would make working with the soft Numulitic limestone easy. Davidowitz poses interesting questions but he should have consulted a Geologist with experience in carbonate petrography (absolutely NOT Scott Wother) before he's published. Had he done so, he would have seen why his hypothesis is untenable. BTW, I have a PhD in Geology/Geophysics and considerable experience in Petrography.
Your comment is full of holes I can't writing that much, have 1 example. You say in 5, about water pores not being formed in x.... What if they made the pyramid like bunkers Multiple layered pours for single blocks, making it stronger Like there's more too
there is no crushing of the material to make "cement"... the cement is made from clay, natron, and lime... the aggregate is loose and relatively large stones and rubble that contain both opal and fossils... what gave you the idea there was grinding involved, you are exposing that you don't know how concrete is made and you don't even know the difference between concrete and cement, he's proved his theory by making the same material which contains opal if the original contained opal... his man made limestone blocks were/are indistinguishable from the material in the actual pyramids (includes fossils and opal if opal is a part of it) and he's shown how to make concrete geopolymer out of granite or andesite too, the casing material was also man made geopolymers
Dude, ... what u said is purely insulting u know. U watch for free and yet u complain about an ad? get real and respect the creators. Ps Yt Prem here. Am jobless rn due to covid btw. Yes am dong fine thank u.
@@andrewholdaway813 No way you could do it 1 go. The forms would be inlmpossibly massive and would have to hold back the hydraulic pressure of an entire pyramids worth of concrete. If you do it in chunks you can reuse forms. Not to mention how would they mix it all at once? I for one buy onto this concrete theory as the most plausible explanation to date.
@@andrewholdaway813 No, your explanation is confusing, I keep re-reading it and don't understand your point. How does using the roughly cut inner blocks to support subsequent blocks, result in a humongous block of concrete? And you say, 'If the pyramid was cast from a form concrete why would it be in discrete blocks?' suggests that you are saying that instead of casting blocks of concrete, that they built an actual form (or cast) shaped like a pyramid to pour (or cast) the concrete into, which as Robert points out, would be completely impossible since no structure (at least not in those times and nearly impossible now with modern technology) would be able to retain the hydraulic force of that much liquified cement. Plus, it is clear that they are discrete blocks, not an entire cast form.
@@andrewholdaway813 You're more thorough explanation makes much more sense, and I agree it is unlikely that they had the technology for self-setting concrete, otherwise there would be other examples of it being used besides, like statues or defensive walls for example.
@@andrewholdaway813 There are so many mysteries of the past that I would love to know. Like who figured out fire, and cooking food on it. Wouldn't it be amazing if we could figure out who decided to try intentionally putting animal meat, or mixtures of plant matter onto a fire to make better food? Domesticating animals, forming villages and towns. But the cooking thing, which I think was the key to human evolution, that is what I would so love to know. But the pyramids are quite a mystery themselves.
@@richardduerr9983 I've had this thought also about cooking food. My best theory is hominids found a burnt carcass after, say a forest fire, and ate it. Cooked food is easier to digest than raw food. They probably liked how it tasted and how it made their stomachs work much less. Just my own theory.
I will gladly take this ancient concrete theory over ancient aliens any day, ancient concrete at least doesn't erase the wonder of human accomplishment. EDIT: (looks at reply number) ...holy god damn am I suddenly glad my reply notifications aren't working...and so full of anti-science nonsense and conspiracy too...at least there're plenty of people rebutting it, but guys, I think y'all are arguing with brick walls here...
And where did the ancient Egyptians get all of the advanced maths, knowledge and sciences to do all of this. They just magically learned it all right before the making of the pyramids ... then just magically forgot it all, and destroyed all traces of any such knowledge? You're gonna have to prove that.
"This project is going to run over time and budget. These stones are taking far longer to set than anticipated" "Alright, bugger using granite for the rest of them then.."
@@dangerrangerlstc they're structural ua-cam.com/video/eGqfdXkAQMk/v-deo.html not that a huge pile of precise stones wouldn't be impressive already but it isn't just a pile it's a building, with bones
@@snooks5607 fill areas can be structural too. Like fill on the back side of a earth dam, the weight is important, but what its made out of isn't necessarily that important
It's also worth mentioning that an analysis on the blocks showed that tiny iron filings in the bricks from different parts of the pyramids were all found to be pointing magnetic north. That's only a possible scenario if the blocks were poured at the site. What are the odds they were all carved and happened to be places in the exact same orientation as they were in the quarry?
The actual theory in question freely admits that 90% of the blocks are solid quarried stone. They only claim a few of the very highest stones were possibly poured.
@UCDS1Gbu2zBXpxByAdVHrdjw the higher you get on the pyramid would signify that they couldn't do it from the ground lvl anymore and transport it. Plus it's only stuck at a low percent because they can't test every rock without destroying the pyramid. Think about it . Those numbers you were given were complete guesses, and they were made that way so mainstream science would not shut them down for trying to change the narrative 🙄
@@nodak81 scientists are not even allowed to get samples from the pyramids most of the time, and every time it points toward something that's different from the narrative they shut it down instantly. Most of the research done was against Egyptian law and has been undermined. So all these people saying otherwise haven't even seen real data and have only seen the fake reports made by Egyptian scientists that haven't done a thing to learn anything about the pyramids for over 60 years
The quarried blocks were put there by aliens. That’s never been in question. The poured concrete blocks were made by humans because the aliens didn’t know how to pour concrete. Didn’t you watch the video?
Quite absurd. The so-called "Diary of Merer" details limestone deliveries to Giza. -In the ruins of the work camps we have the remains of tools for cutting and polishing stone, but not for pouring concrete. -Pouring concrete is self-leveling, but only for that particular block. That means every block would need to have the precise amount of concrete to be level with it's lateral companions, however the blocks are not of a uniform width. Why bother making molds of different sizes in width and depth? -Where are the mold marks? Ancient Roman aqueducts show the "fingerprints" of wooden molds into which the concrete was poured. Yes, the Pyramids are much older, but many of the stones are pristine and show no such markings. -Concrete requires a heating process to chemically prepare the concrete to properly bind. You don't simply mix a bunch of stuff together and you have concrete. Such heating would require vast kilns and fuel. There is evidence for ovens at Giza, but they are for making bread and are not appropriate for concrete. We know these are bakeries based on the presence of millstones and pottery. -We know the Egyptians used wooden sleds, not only from the artwork but we actually have examples. For instance the Sledge from mortuary complex of Senwosret I which is in the Met Museum in New York. We have no evidence of a means of moving water or wet concrete up so high. It's difficult to move a heavy stone up many meters. It's even harder to move heavy water and mortar up the same path without spilling it. -If the Egyptians could move the giant granite stones into position, there is no reason to think they couldn't have done it with smaller, more easily worked limestone. -A top down view of the great pyramid reveals an interesting clue: the interior stones are skewed in one direction, the exterior stones are aligned much more precisely to the cardinal coordinates. But when the tops of the pyramids were made, if they were poured with "such great precision", why would they be skewed in such a way? Wouldn't it be easier to square the molds off and pour?
This actually makes a lot of sense. Considering that Greeks and Romans were one of the first people to use concrete and the Greeks had strong ties to Egypt in trade. So what if the Greeks and Romans learned how to make concrete from the Egyptians?
Yeah it's insulting to those people. Same EXACT energy as, "They couldn't engineer a pathogen in a laboratory because they eat wild bats from medieval style markets that still sell bush meat."
This is the most viable theory yet. Also explains an assortment of other ancient structures. Geopolymer can be made from an assortment of stone types and outperforms concrete in many cases. Highly feasible theory.
A Florida man build a castle of huge rocks several tons each by hand. A Michigan man literally moves rocks weighing 25 tons or more by hand…by himself…and using nothing but handmade tools that the Egyptians had and pebbles. If one man can use leverage to complete such a task then I’m certain the Egyptians could with all their slaves
Once you find out about Tartaria & The Mud Floods Etc all of this starts to make complete sense, the people that built these structures & buildings harvesting electricity from the Ether, NOT by slaves and low IQ ancient people but by highly advanced humans that we're not told about and this history is hidden and we get lies hinting towards some Aliens, the Reality is the Tartarian Empire and using free energy. We are living in a more barbaric dirty electrical society the ancient people did not. Research this truth, we also don't live on a Globe in Infinite space but thats another Truth for your soul to seek.
@@Carmichael_ Your truth is only true to you. If you are attempting to convince someone you need to provide reasons for that person to be convinced. As it stands, your comment is a bunch of unbacked claims.
How did they bake and then crush millions of tons of limestone into a powder to make so much concrete? What kind of lime kilns and crushing tools did they use? Where did they get the fuel for so many lime kilns? No other concrete structure has been built anywhere close to this size until the 20th century. Concrete takes an enormous amount of energy to produce in such quantities.
If you read Davidovits’ books, watch his videos on his web site, analyse his critic’s arguments and carefully read those studies by independent scientists that support him, you eventually come to the realization that Davidovits is most likely correct. Nobody has a better hypothesis or more scientific evidence in support. In another hundred years students will be saying “Seems obvious. Why did they fight against his ideas?” Answer: Ego, politics, self importance.
Because everyone thinks that it is their theory that will make future people go "Sounds obvious." That's ironically the most obvious part that people don't get when they accuse others of arrogance and hubris, forgetting it is in every human being by nature.
Year old comment, but another good example of this is Alfred Wegener theorizing Pangea and continental drift in 1912. His theory is so painfully obvious if you just look at a global map. But on top of just the shape of continental coastlines, he had compelling amounts of fossil evidence as well. He traveled the globe and found fossils of the same species existing at the exact same time on entirely separate continents. The same species on separate continents is otherwise unexplainable unless the landmasses had once been connected. Despite all his evidence, Pangea, plate tectonics, and continental drift was not widely accepted as factual until the mid 1950/60s because the science community had no adequate explanation to the forces that moved the plates. 30 years after his death science was finally like: okay its probably true, sorry.
Scientist: "These ancient Egyptians are so smart they figured out a way to turn limestone into concrete much better than we would have ever imagined! How brilliant of them!" Prime minister:"no dummy they cut and carry rocks in big way we no get, don't be stupid and make them seem dumb. Old Egypt big smart, cut and carry heavy rock not pour and mix"
@@GryffieTube evidence helps tho, which he has. Also either way my point was this guy made the Egyptians seem waaaay smarter than we already thought, if anything it should be taken as a complement even if wrong, it's better than "oh they couldn't do this, must've had help"
@@GryffieTube "The point - over your head" Smiley wasn't arguing the techniques he was simply stating machoism vs intellect and the disregard to further investigate any possibilities. Seems pretty anti-scientistic on your part, I mean what part of "chemical analysis found both samples to be identical" doesn't make sense?
No. Do not misrepresent the situation pls. For the love of God. Stop that. 1) Your comment starts of with turning an assumption into a fact. That is the first misrepresentation. 2) The second is that the assumption does not even match the unproven theory pushed forward by the chemist. 3) The third one is to assume that not pouring concrete limeblocks dimishes the intelligence of the people from the Old Kingdom, or that anyone else would think like that as a result. 4) The fourth misrepresentation is the insinuation that pouring concrete would be easier to cutting/moving the stone, ignoring the time to dry/harden and the necessary resources, and how this would change logistics. 5) The fifth misrepresentation is the total disregard of the evidence for cutting/moving stoneblocks, which is a lot to ignore. You can not just ignore that. - A quarry near the pyramids with the same type of stone - The Merer papyri... Locations of other quarries... - difference in quality of limestone within quarries and between quarries (nearby pyramid and Tura f.e.) - Evidence of cutting marks.. - No evidence of these moulds while there is plenty of evidence of boats and sleds... - Absence of locations of concretemaking practises (descriptions, risidue, moulds,...) and you would think you would find at least traces of that when considering the amount of "limestonebricks" that would have to be made? -... The reality, wether some people like it or not, is that there is way more evidence for the cutting/moving of stoneblocks than there is for the pouring theory. 6) I'd just like to add the difference between saying someone is dumb or saying a theory is dumb. Looks like a small difference, but it is in fact a big difference and an important nuance to make. In action you could make a dumb move, but that doesn't guarantee the person is dumb too. It's also the difference of going personal or not. = creating conflict or creating space to discuss respectfully. We also have to understand that not everyone knows as much of one thing as someone else does and vice versa. A chemist is not a geologist or an egyptologist and vice versa. They can come together however to discuss their findings. That said, and altho Zahi Hawass is understandably very "careful" with hypes, diplomacy and preservation of the pyramids, I would not mind if this chemist - who's not a geologist - was permitted to conduct more research in the manner of gathering more samples (which are limited in his current research). I will make a small confession tho, I do think Zahi Hawass likes to be the authority on the pyramids... If that is the real reason why he would be careful with invasive research done to the pyramids, I would not be so sure about that.
Almost like, like normal humans, they only really cared how the outward facing blocks would look to save time and effort. It's funny how there's really no mystery to the pyramids at all; they're just big piles of rocks in essence and we know who built what and when and have clear evidence of the style being developed and perfected over time.
@@MajesticSkywhale The only thing as misguided as people thinking the pyramids were built by aliens, are people who think we know all there is to know about how/when/why the pyramids were built.
Yeah, even worse there is already ads on TOP of the video that google/youtube have on the video since it's monetized. Literally around 1/4th of the video on average is ads that's tv levels of bad.
@@lifes40123 I saw one thing about " how they built the pyramids " that proposed that they built a water tight tunnel up the side of the pyramid, and used buoyancy devises to float the blocks to the top, they didn't seem to realise that building a water tight shoot, to handle the considerable water pressure of 139 meters head of water, not to mention water tight doors at the bottom would be considerably more difficult and technical to make than a pyramid. Of course they could have trained dinosaurs to carry the blocks....
Erosion might be the most powerful evidence to prove that the pyramid stones were poured cement concrete. First, erosion is happening almost universally to all the pyramid stones coming to our eyes. Secondly, the erosion on some megaliths revealed a crumb within the megaliths' crust. The crumb was made up with bricks of different sizes and colours. Thirdly, no similar erosion is happening to any other stones in other places than the pyramid complex such as the alleged quarry site in Aswan. Fourth, erosion can also be used to prove the granites to be poured cement concrete because many granite blocks have lost half of their original mass.
Where exactly are these granite blocks that have lost half of their weight located? Because the great pyramid only has granite on the INSIDE, so how could it possibly have eroded, from the inside, to such a degree that it lost half of its weight? What you say makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. How can something possibly erode from the INSIDE OUT? Moreover, granite is a conglomerate igneous rock. If a rock is igneous in origin, it’s very easy to tell the difference from non-igneous rocks. Regarding your erosion at Aswan, again, where, exactly, are you supposedly checking to see that no other similar erosion has taken place? Aswan is a QUARRY, not a monument. Therefore, none of the stone FROM Aswan is just laid out in the open to weather for thousands of years, so how could you have any clue whether it has eroded to the same degree? Your claims are just bullshit with zero evidence and zero scientific basis. Just because you have a dream and write it down doesn’t make it true.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 : The granite blocks that have eroded to half of their original size can be seen in this video: ua-cam.com/video/EaQr917lRgI/v-deo.html. When you open it, you just fast forward to 19:29 and pause or stop there.
I have been aware of this for nearly a decade when I learned that a civil engineer from University of Illinois (an expert in concrete) visited the great pyramids of Egypt. He is highly confident that what he daw was concrete. He even went as far as to locate where the concrete was mixed. Besides, learning how to make concrete is not that far from making mud bricks.
Once you find out about Tartaria & The Mud Floods Etc all of this starts to make complete sense, the people that built these structures & buildings harvesting electricity from the Ether, NOT by slaves and low IQ ancient people but by highly advanced humans that we're not told about and this history is hidden and we get lies hinting towards some Aliens, the Reality is the Tartarian Empire and using free energy. We are living in a more barbaric dirty electrical society the ancient people did not. Research this truth, we also don't live on a Globe in Infinite space but thats another Truth for your soul to seek.
@@kingoneeyed3433 Yeah, it's one of my favorite jokes, thanks. (I've also got Occam's Guillotine: Skipping the experiment, and looking for the "Proof" of your assumption is like cutting off your head, so you don't have to shave. It's all part of Occam's Arsenal.)
burlap pattern found in the limestone block have convinced me that geopolymer was used. No one is going to carve a pattern like burlap in rock for no good reason.
So, that makes way more sense than any other theories I’ve heard and it’s probably what accounts for the appearance of erosion on the surface of the blocks. There was a guy on JRE that was ruffling the feathers of Egyptologists with his geological findings, that showed surface erosion consistent with it being rained on for quite a long time period. The problem with that is that it would’ve meant that the pyramids were far older than we had originally thought, by tens of thousands of years-and I’m not willing to dismiss his observations because the timeframe makes it implausible. It just means that there’s another reason it would look like it does today, and I’d bet that if you compared the erosion patterns of Limestone concrete blocks to cut Limestone, I’d bet that the concrete blocks would probably appear more eroded than not. In any case, if I were betting on any of these theories, I’d want my money on this one.
@@MrEazyE357 it is possible the site is much older than the sphinx itself. Its a great theory and would be awesome if true though. Its not unknown for significant religous/holy/worship sights being used for a very long time for many things.
There are fossils in some of the blocks. I struggle to understand how a fossil could survive being ground up. So i'm leaning towards a lost technology / technique. Or they found the pyramids.
Some of the best advice I ever received at University was "Every theory should be viewed as potentially correct until you can conclusively show it to be false"
That’s really bad advice and the defeats the purpose of falsifiability. People use that logic to say that aliens built the pyramids and god made the earth using magic
@@matthewjohnson3656 Very true, but this was meant not to say that aliens or -insert god of choice here- did a thing, more as a reminder to keep an open mind and not discredit an idea simply because you disagree with it. And remember, the ancient egyptian concrete theory has some merit, while the alien/god theory has ZERO evidence to back it. (edit) gave your comment a like, you are very correct in your criticism, far too many fools use false logic and bad science
@@LittleRabbit1138 Exactly. we shouldn't consider a theory until there is SOME evidence, and then we should only have confidence in it as far as the evidence points to it exclusively being the answer.
@@matthewjohnson3656 Sherlock Holmes said it perfectly, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish : "The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi" m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
Stone retains water, pouring any liquid creates suction, not a sliding effect,. What they are pouring is sand or something like fine gravel. When you "sandwich" sand between two pieces of stone, the stone becomes fairly easy to move. This technique is used even today. You can test this yourselves. Next time when you go to the beach, throw some sand on leveled hard surface, like a sidewalk,,then place a solid flat object on top of it. Step on it, and watch how fast it slides and you fall on your arse.
Now drag an 80 ton block up a steep slope, before it slides back down again. remember, the slope/ramp would have taken nearly as much material to build.
They're pouring water _on_ sand to make it a surface such that the sled won't dig in. This technique has been tested and shown to work, greatly reducing the work required to pull the blocks over the surface that actually existed between the river and the pyramid locations. Transporting it over hard flat surfaces (which I don't deny that sand would help with) is the easy part and doesn't require someone standing on the sled pouring the stuff right in front of said sled. You seem to be mixing up the challenges of moving the blocks to the construction site and lifting them to height.
I once saw a PBS special where they built a small pyramid. One thing I noticed about it was that the only time that the onsite foremen was able to get anything done, was when he threw the Egyptologists off the site.
Also if they figured out how to cast limestone they could've figured out a way to cast multiple minerals including granite. I'd love to see more studies and reverse engineering of this theory!
@@uwatmusic Except we know the granite was quarried at Aswan. There is not doubt about that whatsoever. The quarries are still with the same mineral structure as the granite used in the pyramids. There's even an obelisk still in place in the quarry that was pounded out of the granite and is much larger than any granite used in the pyramids.
I’ve always wondered if they could take pieces of granite from the quarry and use them to make a concrete. Then it would have a similar structure but a much more practical way of transport. Who knows. With all the information suppression we probably won’t ever know.
Granite has a different structure to limestone. Limestone is sedimentary and compresses rather that grows similar to sandstone native American Pipestone. Granite is metamorphic. Which means it grew and changed. And should one sufficiently heat it up or grind it up into appropriate means of making concrete you would find it would turn from granulated to closer to greyish with less character n pattern.
"And Pharaoh said to his people: “I have not known a god for you other than myself; so Haman, light me a fire to bake clay so that I could build a rise high enough, maybe I see Moses’ god whom I think is a liar.” [Quran 28.38] How could an illiterate man who lived 1400 years ago have known that those uppermost blocks were made from baked clay? (Ancient Concrete) How did he know the Pyramids at all were of such great height?
I always hate people claiming pyramids were built by aliens because they always dismiss the idea that people back in ancient times were pretty damn clever
Not to forget hard working. We often overlook that even where older civilisations were more intelligent than we credit them for a lot of their achievements involved simple "brute force"
This seems to be one of the main arguments used by academia... Nobody who questions the origins of the pyramids automatically assume ancient people were bumbling idiots that didn't accomplish great things. Whether it was aliens, or a lost civilization from before the younger dryas period, the science is official... a lot of these megalithic constructions are 12+ thousand years old, and we really don't anything about the builders, or the culture that produced them.
In thousands of years time a archaeologist digs up a iPhone. Archaeologist: “How did such primitive peoples create this?!” His mate down the pub: “Aliens!”
I had to read your comment twice to make sure you weren't using "then" for "than". Today's low rate of literacy on the Internet makes me do my best to avoid using certain words just so people don't have to pause when reading what I have written when they come across certain words.
@@acoow I don't know man... Your sentence composition is hot garbage. Read your second sentence to yourself (out loud if you have to), then ask yourself again exactly how superior you think you are.
@@frankwren8215 yeah, with only wood sleds across miles of blazing sand, makes much more sense to bring bags made of animal skins filled with powder, maybe even dig a canal from the Nile to some of the way to the pyramid site to have better access to water than to haul enormous stones. The Egyptians were smart, no doubt they would have seen that hauling blocks with brute force is a waste of time and energy.
@@tatotaytoman5934 people have been carving rocks and stacking them into monuments for ~12,000 years, I think the Egyptians could figure it out. Also, we have the quarries, and we know they cut the limestone in those areas. Why would they even quarry that if they had ready concrete, and why wasn’t it everywhere if it was so useful and practical compared to moving stone, which, again, wouldn’t have been that hard for Bronze Age societies.
TIFO: would require so many trees that Egypt would have been deforested. Ra: So you've never heard of the Sahara forest? TIFO: you mean desert? Ra: It is now...
I like this new theory. The ancients had secrets for making concrete that we still don't understand. If I had to make a pyramid today, I'd use concrete. It all makes sense.
If you made a pyramid today out of concrete it wouldn’t get through planning permission. Concrete is horrible for the environment much easier to just make a hollow frame structure with a stone facade. Also won’t kill the planet.
"Pyramid and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, and optical and SEM-scale properties characteristic of normal microporous limestones, and they are cut by tectonic fractures. Block dimensions and shapes are not likely to be the product of pouring into wooden molds, and some blocks show quarrying marks." -- Folk and Campbell (2018)
Maybe, but Graham Hancock has done more damage and held back the public understandings of the Egyptians then any person in history, all to sell some books.
@@usemythirdarm Graham Hancock and the likes* I agree. These people are the quacks of science. I loathe their lack of intellectual honesty and context in anything that has to do with finding out "truth" while focussing only what they want to be true, and that's just not how science works!
"...al of Egypt would have had to have been deforested." Well, you don't see many trees in Egypt today, DO You? Lol. Someone is totally going to run with this. It's 2020.
Scrawny, little guy is trying to get a job as a lumberjack and is asked about his experience. He reply that he worked in the Sahara. "BUT its a desert"! "It is now". I edited it for brevity, but you get it.
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish : "The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi" m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
Joe Blow, according to another UA-camr the pyramid was built on top of a rock hill/small mountain, so all the Egyptians did was built around it (probably knocked a few years off the building project, if they would start from a flat ground level)
Carrying dirt and water building from the bottom up makes it a lot less impressive. The simplest solution is usually the answer. We love to overthinking things
Agreed it's not only usually the right answer but the best way to understand anything. The difference between a genius and an idiot is that a genius admires simple solutions. An idiot admires solutions that he himself can barely understand. Having said that just because they are geologically different doesn't mean its the wrong answer. It could imply that there is a missing ingredient for lack of better terminology.
Of this, I am not so sure. In some cases - specifically those where the rocks seem to 'melt' into each other, I would agree. In other cases, particularly those involving granite - I am more skeptical. For certain, several ancients, the romans included, seemed to have developed various mortar mixtures revolving around volcanic compounds which produce generally superior masonry to today's coal-ash derived concrete of mass production. It makes sense - people have been formulating clays and building with them for thousands of years - the idea that some autist, playing alchemy with various dirt from the broad reaches of an empire, was able to derive a concrete is not all that far fetched. It could only reasonably be done by a relatively large empire with the trade capacity to move material across dozens if not thousands of miles. Hence roman concrete, egyptian pyramids, unnamed empires in south america, etc. However, casting stone is only a tiny fraction of the challenge of dimensional tolerances. Generally, I would say that casting stone in place would be a hedge against compound error moreso than an explanation for accuracy/precision. In the case of the pyramids, where we are looking at generally simple bricks, casting makes sense as a means for ensuring repeated accuracy. However, when we get to, for example, the infamous puma punku - there are seemingly no production techniques present, today, that could reliably produce such interlocking stone structures. Even if they did have a means of casting metamorphic rock, casting such details in the first place introduces as many problems as it solves. Either way - they knew a few things we don't. Or, at least, haven't put together to do it again.
@@Aim54Delta It appears they used magnesium-based concrete rather than limestone/Calcium. Its vastly stronger. Also, we now have "faux" granite in the form of "quartz" countertops nearly undistinguishable from real stone and more stable...so I am sticking with the ancient geopolymer stone theory, across the entire ancient world.
@@Aim54Delta "specifically those where the rocks seem to 'melt' into each other," If you are referring to the central and South American ones, the stones were softened with pant based acids
it added to their dispersal.. 5 tributaries of the Nile also went missing. there is video on you tube by national geographic, they actually found an untouched box holding a mummy..made of wood, they inscribed into it. Egypt even had termites. The disappearance of termites in the wood, revealed the geological change..and it was rather sudden. Just another mystery.
The climate of the northern half of Africa has changed significantly over the past few thousand years! It wasn’t a desert for at least some of the ancient Egyptian period :’)
5000 years ago Egypt was lush, forested and criss crossed with rivers. phys.org/news/2013-04-abrupt-widespread-climate-shift-sahara.html#:~:text=The%20Sahara's%20%22green%22%20era%2C,of%20one%20to%20two%20centuries.
Wooden fulcrum and crane can only carry around 1 tonne, due to the length of the fulcrum bar wood couldn't have been used to lift much weight. It probably would have taken the whole forest of Egypt to build a raft to carry an 80 tonne stone 500 miles . That's a fact. Also the whole water supply. They also had primitive tools. What's more likely is an extremely advanced race were driven out of Egypt into Spain and France by the Arab populations. That's why the Norman's knew how to build with stone and rotate crops. Its also why the Egyptian have no idea how they were built, they didn't build them. Interestingly the pyramid is on USA dollar with the all seeing eye. Which is connected to the freemason who have architectural devices as their motif.
Let's think through this: Couldn't they scan the outer stones and look for repeating patterns that would imply the use of a mold? Also, wouldn't molded (rather than cut) stone would have few, if any, chisel marks? How much weight could a cast block support? It's an interesting and novel theory, and is on its face plausible enough to earn further research and testing. So, let's start with the older (earliest) pyramids and look for evidence of this (or any other) technique. This mystery can (and will) be solved; IMO, the trick (process) is to take a systematic approach to observing the evolution of the design and building of the structures. Let's gather and publicly debate the evidence, and then let each of us judge for ourselves to the satisfaction of his/her own reason. PS: as a trained engineer, one mistake many make is to try to analyze the most complex structure first. Who could possible infer how a computer chip were made if they started with even an 8088 chip, or how a plane flys by analyzing an SR-71? Go back to the step pyramid, through the bent and red pyramids and then the later, greater pyramids, and document apparent techniques in materials and construction. Over time, the pieces of the puzzle will find their place.
If "ancient concrete" was used, then why would the Unfinished Obelisk in Aswan be worked on flat to the ground? Why wouldn't the Egyptians make it easier on themselves and just mold the obelisk already in its position and standing up with this "ancient concrete"?
@@CasanovaPugilist147 Good question, but the answer is, I think pretty straight-forward: granite is much harder than limestone (and concrete made from limestone). Material internal to a structure (here, the plausible concrete) can be much less environmentally resilient than a 'softer' ancient concrete, allowing for a self-supporting item, which also maintains shape and designs/writing (not to mention, it's just more aesthetic). So, a cast block is consistent with an interior pyramid 'stone' but not with a weather-facing obelisk. If you want a modern example, go to any old and un-renovated hotel and stay in a room with an older marble countertop (as opposed to a granite or quartz countertop). You'll notice that it's grooved and worn. You'll also see this in older buildings with marble staircases -- they have smooth, worn (often almost angled) staircases. Limestone is software than marble, and ancient concrete is typically software than limestone. Granite allows for messaging on weather-facing surfaces that lasts for millennia; no concrete (even modern concrete) will hold a clear notched message over centuries, much less millennia (see, for example, any old graveyard). So, to directly answer your question "why didn't the Egyptians make it easier on themselves and just mold the obelisk already in its position?" Because: (1) they knew it wouldn't last, (2) it wouldn't look as good, and (3) I'm not convinced that creating a single mold would even work, much less be "easier." Pouring blocks at a time *might* be easier, but you'd still face the issues of longevity of the structure as well as the longevity of the art and writings. PS: I've seen videos claiming that you can see that denser materials "fall" to the base of each of the block (which would support heavier items settling during casting). PSS: my main objection the casting theory is that, to me, it would be much harder to grind all that stone, move it, and then use LOTS of precious water (which would also have to be carried), mix it, and then cast -- either in place or at a fixed location -- than to just cut the stones to begin with. I could, however, see some "waste materials" being cast into selected smaller blocks, especially near the top or used to create corner-supports with odd shapes. Still ... it would be great to see some evidence.
@@ThrashLawPatentsAndTMs I see. Wouldn't it make sense then to apply the same principles of building the pyramid towards an obelisk with the interior or in this case the inside of the obelisk being made out of ancient concrete and the outside out of granite? Basically, what I'm trying to say is if the Egyptians were focused on making the obelisk last, then wouldn't you build the obelisk with the inside hollowed out and once erect and in position, you fill the hollowed-out insides of the obelisk with the ancient concrete to give it more weight and stronger base making it tougher to tip over and at the same time, the exterior is protected by granite that will last for a millennia. Similar to a lollipop where the outside is made of a tougher candy material and the inside is made up of softer candy material. Would be much easier than just constructing the obelisk purely out of granite and would require less manpower to erect the obelisk standing and in its location. This is assuming the ancient Egyptians definitely needed a ton of manpower to move these heavy ton obelisks into place but if they had some sort of tech that allowed them to move these obelisks into place easily regardless of weight then obviously there would be no point in constructing a lighter hollowed out granite obelisk because it would just add more time in the construction process of "hollowing out" the obelisk. That or the builders didn't care, they just cut the granite into the final obelisk shape as quick as possible and used pure brute power with the help of many slaves and animals like elephants to erect these heavy structures into their desired place.
@@CasanovaPugilist147 Why would you waste time and manpower hollowing out the interior of a stone? I'm curious: have you ever held granite, limestone, and marble and compared the materials? RE: Elephants -- as far as I know there were no elephants in Egypt, and the only beasts of burden were (much later) mules, then also camels and horses in the modern age (meaning last 500 years)
@@madrox4132 agreed! Sponsor block is a god send. If you're on android, I'd also recommend people check out UA-cam Vanced which has ad blocking and sponsor block built in as well as some other nice features.
@@GryffieTube I'm just a rando that recognizes a fraud-pushing bullshit artist when I see one. Btw - if I'm such a nobody why did you feel you needed to write a long triggered paragraph about the status of your butthurt over what I wrote? #LetsGoBrandon
It’s so easy to disprove the geo polymer theory. The presence of intact nummulites (fossils). They wouldn’t be present if the rock was crushed up and glued/melted back together.
As I read it some years ago now, the theory doesn't claim that all blocks were poured, just some. The theory also accounts for how precisely certain blocks are fissured or fractured, explaining that those features are more consistent with pouring problems such as errors in cooling speed or a broken cast than with stone moving accidents.
@@thomashaas2929 correct, its like saying Saddam Hussain built the Zigurat of Ur in 10000 years from now just because they found some bricks with his name
I was obsessed with the great pyramid when I was younger. One interesting thing I've found that no one else seems to talk about is that the blocks are all comprised paramagnetic minerals. Meaning magnetic properties can be imbued through electromagnetic. I know it's far fetched but what led me down that rabbit hole was ed leedskalnin building coral castle saying he rediscovered the method that the ancient egyptians used to build with megalithic stones....using electro magnetics. His blocks are ALSO all paramagnetic. No one cares though. Just me and ed and he died.
I have posted a link 3 times to a paper from the journal of applied physics put forth by a team of russian scientist... youtube keeps deleting it. But they ran simulations regarding electromagnetic resonance of the great pyramid inner chambers. If you're interested it's findable on google. Essentially what was found is that the great pyramid can collect and contain electromagnetic power within it's chambers. 'basically the Pyramid scatters the electromagnetic waves and focuses them into the substrate region.'
I never heard that before and I guess into the rabbit hole I go. I have long thought that they used harmonics to basically disassemble the stone to sand move it into place and use harmonics to vitrify it again. Like the Hutchinson effect.
I never liked that hawas. The only good thing from that spring was him being arrested. Sadly, he is back at work and on every show about ancient Egypt again.
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish : "The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi" m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
Love to see you do a video on the internal Spiral Ramp theory... seems plausible with a great deal of evidence, including ground penetrating technologies... Ive actually believed it was built using both methods for a while now...
It’s interesting how conspiracy theorists will often cite hostility from traditional archaeologists to their theories as confirmation of those theories’ validity and of an agenda to suppress them. Here, we have a non-conspiracy explanation for the construction of the pyramids, and yet, because it differs from the conventional explanation, archaeologists show the same strange hostility toward it.
Unfortunately, that's how much of acedemia works. That's also why areas of study, such as quantum physics is making great strides... anyone ignorant enough to dismiss an idea that is most likely correct is too unintelligent to be involved to begin with.
Isn't the History Channel an authority on history, or at least they sell themselves that way? Why would they insist for many years to the general public that aliens built the pyramid? This isn't even just some small groups saying it, but a major television station is saying that!
Intellectual institutions and science as a whole is very competitive and ego driven. They are all trying to disprove each others work ( a result of rigorous experiments) and the debates between them (due to competitiveness) can get heated. That might be the “hostility” you are referencing.
@@JS-wp4gs The ancient Egyptians didn't have the resources to create ____ on the scale of - what? The pyramids? The Great Pyramid complex in the period of just a few decades? Phooey! As for 'concrete' apparently you don't know how modern OR Roman concrete was made. Either that or you didn't pay attention to the recipe for Egyptian 'concrete' and notice it was different. A final note to all of you who adore and laud Roman concrete as magically superior, you do know that ordinary modern concrete gets harder the longer it lasts right?
The concrete thing could have happened when they were pounding away at rocks with a mixture of sand from another quarry the two powders when wet made concrete. Maybe it rained and they found that all of the dust at the bottom of the stone they were carving had hardened.
@@ginsuma1402 Alchemy literally means of egypt. Khemia was one of the native names for egypt and we got the name from the arabs so there is an al before it. Contrary to popular belief, chemistry is the direct descendent of alchemy. The scientific method was applied to it and the magic was thrown out, but all early chemistry comes directly from alchemists. They correctly identified many of the elements for example. Basically what I'm getting at is Ancient Egypt probably had many educated people doing rudimentary chemistry. Maybe it was one of them spotting it in the field, being informed by a labourer or working it out purposefully in some ancient experiment.
@@Hashishin13 Nicely explained...As an Alchemist of the magick variety knowing it's history I agree with you 100%. They were well known for their Alchemical acuity,. It just never dawned on me the Alchemists probably played a big role in the construction of the pyramids.
Fun and interesting video Simon! No surprise Zahi Hawass hates this theory, he hates most "new" ideas based in science. Hawass has delayed more discoveries than any "Pharaoh's curse" lol.
@@Widestone001 That might actually not be true at all, for some reasons: 1 - We only have access to the concrete that survived to this day, meaning any roman concrete with inferior quality was already destroyed a long time ago, wich creates a huge bias torwards claiming roman concrete as superior; 2 - Concrete gets STRONGER with time, not the oposite, so if you give 2000 years to a block of concrete it will be more resistent than a block with a few years or decades; 3 - They didn't use steel on their concrete structures, wich is the main source of degradation of such strutures due to the oxidation of the steel. There is also the fact that the concrete has a lot of qualities, not only its resistence, but its plasticity and cost must also be taken into account. So the definition of "superior" depends on its use. All that said, the only way of knowing wich one of the two is superior to the other is recreating the method in wich it was made back in the day, and as far as I know we are not there just yet.
I enjoyed the Easter Island experiment a few years back, where scientists gave oral tradition the benefit of the doubt that the huge head statues were "walked" into place. Turns out, that was the solution.
So the guy that came up with it still said his theory has lots of flaws. Great argument! Questions about mixing the stone cement/whatever mix it is. Does it contract and expand like all other mixes during temperature changes? How much would each block expand during a 100 degree day and contract during a 20 degree night F? Most cement pours are not level until you grind them down. I can't imagine keeping a poured mix level throughout and when it dries and contracts to not have any soft spots or shrunken spots. How did they mix it? Shovels, Sticks, Trees/wood? Did anyone do the math on how many they can mix and place, dry, and then add another piece? If you just kept pouring how would there be spaces between that are so tight you can't get paper through it? How do they hold the wood in place for such a large stone while it dries? Its elevated and slanted. Did wood boards and tree stumps hold them in perfect place? Did they reinforce the blocks with steel like we do today? No metal inside to hold it in place? Must have been one hell of a mixture.
I agree with your statements. As I was thinking of the exact same issues. That and including that cement/concrete is actually porous. Which you alluded to. Concrete being porous erodes surprisingly quickly, in the realm of time passing, if water is frequently poured over it i.e. exposed to rain and the tiny pores that form also start to create cracks that water starts to funnel into the structure further weakening it and eventually will cause massive fissures that further break down the structure. Go look at Any pictures of abandoned cities, the concrete buildings breakdown within 50 years, sometimes faster maybe last 100 years at best, before crumbling apart. And they have reinforced steal throughout. It is highly unlikely that a large cement/concrete structure would last anywhere near what they have. Yes I know many were once covered/buried in sand and Egypt is a desert. But The oldest ancient Pyramids built would have been long eroded and crumbled away BEFORE the last ancient Pyramid would have been built. Google various abandoned modern cities and look at how quickly buildings erode and read on exactly how concrete is poured and set and the erosion issues known by construction companies. Finally, if they did hypothetical caste the stones out of cement/concrete, why not make them smaller, bigger than bricks but much smaller than the slabs used?! Wouldn't this make the whole entire process easier, especially to ensure that they have set properly and could be more easily moved to build the pyramids. If you are going to respond to the idea that, well then why didn't they then cut the stone smaller, read about stone slab cutting and how and why they use various ratios of possible dimensions for cutting of various types of stone. This will explain why they cut as large as possible while insuring you can still produce a constant size. You know, there are many other stone cut ancient buildings that use similar sized cut slabs than just the Egyptian Pyramids.
Been listening to Graham Hancock recently? You realise that to get ahead in the field of science or history, you are actually motivated to overturn others theories and disprove them. If a theory isn't mainstream yet, its likely not got enough evidence to back it. It just hasn't met the standard of proof required to overturn established findings.
Egyptology is more like a religion than a science. When you look at all of the actual data, you see that the obvious truth has often no explanation in the "science" (read: story) of Egyptology. Hawas destroyed many ancient artifacts that didn't fit the "right" paradigm.
Except. If you have a pourable medium that you can use to cast shapes, why choose separate block shapes that have to be moved into place at all? Just cast in place. Not to forget the enormous amount of wood it would have taken to create that much quicklime, which kind of nerfs the whole "not enough wood in all of Egypt to move giant blocks" idea. Then we need to consider, if they were pouring limestone "concrete" blocks, then why are there carved limestone blocks left over in abandoned quarries from that time? If they were pouring concrete to form blocks there would be no reason to spend time carving limestone into blocks. Also why aren't there "concrete" structures all over Egypt? All those ancient artifacts, statues, monuments and an endless procession of tombs and temples, none of which have any hint of ancient concrete. It seems a little absurd that such a useful tech would only have ever been used to build one structure complex and then disappear.
@Dongs Almost, they used actual limestone for the facing though as a particularly high quality quarried stone from the Tura Quarries rather than as a render. (which is part of the reason they are bare today. Later generations stole the limestone)
French Architect Houdin construction method plus pouring. Both combined is it. Houdin's is 100% plausible and Geoplymer makes much more sense. Removes so many obstacles. Combine them and it works
@@Kizron_Kizronson They probably didn’t have the infrastructure to make anything much bigger than single blocks? I’m imagining the stuff was probably carried by a small team of workers by hand, which would necessarily limit the size and shape of what could be poured.
i think the same could be said about machu picchu, as a stone mason i always thought that those stones werent stones at all but concrete that had been poured into sacks of some kind then stacked and the bag could be cut away after it dries. same technique can be done with whole bags of concrete to make garden walls
Earthen structures made from mud have been around for thousands of years and some still stand. It's so surprising Egyptologists would be so quick to disregard such a plausible theory but I guess it can be expected for "established" thinkers to balk at new ideas and be posthumously embarrassed.
There are many problems with the hypothesis. The biggest is that most of those blocks are not regularly sized or shaped. Did they make a new mold for each block? And why are they not level? The theory would only make sense for the outer casing blocks, which were regularly cut, but that only accounts for a fraction of the total blocks.
If they used a hybrid of quarried limestone and poured limestone, they could have laid out the quarried stone across each vertical layer (one layer at a time) in a checkerboard pattern, and then filled the cubic holes with poured limestone.
The ancient Egyptians actually documented the names of the architects and officials involved. The didn't use slaves, they just gathered the population from all over the kingdom to work on the project and they were payed and fed their daily bread by the state. Archeologists are just arguing about how many ramps were needed. However this meant less people guarding the borders and less funds for projects and agriculture at the farthest parts of the kingdom which lead to a lot of unrest. The earliest pyramids where step shaped, it took king Sneferu two failed pyramid projects and a waste of funds, resources and man power before we got to the first iconic pyramids. His incomplete Meidum pyramid is key to understanding how all the others where built
I think you're missing a huge point of the debate. Meidum itself is evidence that its method of construction was NOT what was used in Khufu's time. The fact that the great pyramids were significantly larger, took only around two decades to build, and did not collapse like Meidum after many millennia, all show that the construction method had been significantly improved by then. The general plans for the pyramids were the same, yes, but Khufu's engineers obviously had done a much better job at constructing his pyramid. The architecture is the same, but the engineering is vastly different. The modern day analogy would be to compare the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower and the Burj Khalifa. They were both designed by the same firm and actually follow the same pattern. If you look at Willis you'll know how the Burj was built. However, to actually build the Burj engineers had to invent new construction methods and use lighter and stronger materials not available when the Willis was built. The construction method for the Willis simply couldn't scale for the Burj, and that's the key debate for the pyramids as well. The Willis is to the Burj what Meidum was to Giza. We know the basic plan of Giza from looking at Meidum, but we don't know specifically what Khufu's ancient engineers had to do to make the Giza last that whoever built Meidum apparently failed to do.
@@feliperamos9191 It's not a fallacy, it's a method for making a tentative conclusion based on incomplete evidence. It was never understood to be a way to divine truth from anything, but rather a temporary understanding until more evidence arrives. It's good because, statistically, the simplest answer IS usually the right one.
@@feliperamos9191 That's not Occam's Razor. That's the mistaken version that most people on the internet use. The real version basically says "The answer which requires the least number of assumptions is most likely to be the correct one."
@@jerotoro2021 look for the worldwide nub phenomenon in megalithic sites(including giza|). its evidence enough to at least a pushback civilization some many thousand years.
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish : "The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi" m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
@@mattd6085 As much as I love the discipline of archeology, a lot of archeologists lack the proper scientific attitude. Many of them are chock full of biases and self-serving ambition. Mentioned in the video, Zawi Hawass (sp?) refuses site permits to any egyptologist who's theories don't agree with his.
Consider this: for most of human history beer was the safest way to get and be hydrated. Beer is made with boiled water, which goes a long way toward sterilizing it, and the formation of alcohol in the brew adds to that. Go to your local river, collect a few gallons and use that at your only source of fluids - and don't bet on how long you will live. Modern river water is very polluted, and ancient rivers (or even only 200 years ago) were even worse. Even now that "cool, clear river water" can definitely kill you!
what do you think the sphinx is hiding under his paws? GPR has discover a room there but the Egyptian gov. will not let any one dig there for fear of ruining the monument
I had the same idea years ago. After all, sandstone and limestone were loose grains of minerals that became solidified under heat or pressure along with natural mineral binders like iron or manganese.
Get 50% off your first month of any KiwiCo subscription! KiwiCo.com/TIFO
WHERE DO I KNOW THIS GUYS VOICE FROM??!?
I’m sorry this was so intriguing
Coming from business blaze, this seems so strange. Where is the death?
Why does your basement have windows simon?
Dearest Simon,
I love to watch your presentations. Yes, our neighbors (coughs, excuse me, neighbours) to our north may complain a tad about you, however, they also claim to have the better beer, though, that would be best saved for another letter and presentation...Simon presenting the five best beers of the Three North America Countries. A Simon Whistler and Irish People Try combination.
but, I digress
I love when you get one quarter to one third into a presentation and mumble, something to the effect, I need to pre-read these. I would like to air quote every history program that I have watched on UA-cam and cable (specifically History Channel) 'the stone and poured concrete will last centuries, if not millennia.' That being said, why do the humans that inhabit the earth presently believe they are the only ones that were capable of the generation of electricity.
I was watching a presentation of Aramu Muru, located near lake Titicaca. It was described as being two things, 1) odd that a tribe could transport stones weighing countless tonnes (I believe that is the proper term for a metric ton) hundreds of miles over rocky and steep cliffs, making the transport difficult, if not seemingly impossible. And 2) why and how was there a lake next to Aramu Muru that molecularly the same combination of sand as what the rocks that made up the Aramu Muru, and essentially the same size as the final effort of the rocks that make up the Aramu Muru.
Another item that all the history programmes I have watched drilled into my head was that metals (iron, copper, etc) corrode over time.
For some reason, these channels and presentations limit the abilities of the individuals constructing the items they are talking about; The Pyramids, the stone structure at Aramu Muru, etc.
I guess I am using the Occam's razor theory. One of the presentations of the Aramu Muru panned the whole village that made up the mountain village in Peru. It showed a room about 10 foot high, 11 foot deep, 11.5 to 12 foot across. In fact, it showed two of them next to each other. The rooms are often looked at and given question as to their purpose. I paused it and looked up induction furnaces from the 1929 period, and, OMG, they looked very similar. Too similar in ways. Why is it so hard for people to consider the idea that people from that time, an estimated between 700 AD to pre-3000 years ago, and further back, were in fact advanced enough to have electricity and to make a heating system that utilized the induction furnace, or just understood how to generate enough heat to melt said substances. Life Without Humans, a really interesting program series from The History Channel, shows how most items that are iron go into a crumbled pile of iron oxide after five to nine centuries of nonuse and exposure. And who says the bowls used for the furnaces corroded? Maybe they were transported and used again, leaving behind the parts of the procedure that have the least impact on production. It was hot enough to melt steel in the 1920s, it could be hot enough to melt the sand that was poured into moulds to make the Aramu Muru and Pyramids. If glazed pottery existed in that time period and both melted steel (1510c melting point) existed and glass (sand melts at 1700c) existed, why would it be so difficult for the sand in both to have been melted, then poured into place?
I would also like to bring up a point that, when studying the pyramids, researches found oval bubbles that they couldn't explain. Small, rice shaped, bubbles that were present when the melting of sand to recreate rock were similar to the small bubbles found in the rocks in the pyramids. Sorry, but, that is a huge "bang one's head against the wall until your theory fits with what happened" rather than looking at the theory presented and the end results. I love how scientists refuse to take suggestions, no matter how plainly or politely presented.
Thanks for this, btw, I am enjoying it.
The fact that the Ancient Egyptians were as old to the Ancient Greeks as the Ancient Greeks are to us is mind blowing.
That's actually pretty insane to think about.
And there are some civilisations that make them look modern. EG the egyptiand were around 4000 years ago. The civilisation that resulted in Jericho? 11,000. Also if you are talking about the Greeks. Which Greeks do you mean? Classical or Ancient? The Ancient Greek civilisation collapsed with the Bronze Age Collapse in 1173BC. The "Greek" civilisation before them was 7000 years old.
Almost. Alexander the Great died 2343 years ago. The Old Kingdom of Egypt collapsed around 1800 years before Alexander. Still pretty unfathomable timescales.
Cleopatra was born closer to the invention of the Instagram than to the construction of the pyramids.
@James Smythe Except of course the evidence that shows them older does not take into account the higher water table 4000 years ago,
People tend to forget that humans living 4000 years ago were the same humans as living today. They had their own geniuses like Einstein or Tesla. People whose curiosity matched intelligence. People capable of discovering brilliant solutions to problems. They weren't monkeys. Those were intelligent, thinking humans, just without the gift of 4000 years of accumulating knowledge and technology.
Yes, but their achievements are impressive given the fact that so much of their time and energy went into not starving. Einstein wouldn't have published his theories if he had to spend 16 hours a day farming.
Lets not forget that Ancient Egyptian Priests where defiantly the world class scientists of their day. Pythagoras spent decades there studying.
Probably yes, propably not. 4000 years is a long time and many could happened to cognitive abillities, intelligence and creativity of averege people .
@@neurodegenerat5221 the introduction of the color blue into language is a very interesting topic on the idea of the changing mind.
@@neurodegenerat5221 today, so many minds are not challenged, we have computers, calculators, and of course Google... how many people under 40 do you know that can properly make and count back change without a computer telling them what the change should be?
It's weird how so many people seem to be interpreting this ancient concrete theory as a suggestion the Great Pyramids somehow aren't an amazing achievement.
Once you find out about Tartaria & The Mud Floods Etc all of this starts to make complete sense, the people that built these structures & buildings harvesting electricity from the Ether, NOT by slaves and low IQ ancient people but by highly advanced humans that we're not told about and this history is hidden and we get lies hinting towards some Aliens, the Reality is the Tartarian Empire and using free energy.
We are living in a more barbaric dirty electrical society the ancient people did not.
Research this truth, we also don't live on a Globe in Infinite space but thats another Truth for your soul to seek.
@@Carmichael_ lmao wtf did i just read
@@Carmichael_ what's you're research, because there's a few basic things you can do to observe the curvature of the earth, additionally you can't have free energy, there's a limited (yes astronomical, but still limited) amount of energy we have access too, think about rolling a ball down a hill, it takes more effort to get the ball to the top, than the ball rolling down generates
Additionally if they were that advanced it would have Been recorded, if not by the people's (I highly doubt that, recording is a common human trait) then explorers would have recorded it, yall seem to forget that archeologists just really like dusty old rocks, and old human remains they aren't some super level conspirists
Plot Twist: It is Ancient Concrete... *MADE BY "ANCIENT ALIENS"!!!*
@@Carmichael_ Bullshit. These kinds of conspiracy theories are just as damaging as the Ancient Aliens garbage, and just as ludicrous. You are talking about Atlantis levels of bullshit. Ancient people didn't use electricity "pulled from the Ether," whatever that means.
"To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting" (8:50)
How would it be an insult to suggest Egyptians used brains over brawns in order to build these magnificent structures? Their ingenuity and dedication remains as commendable.
Hawaz and people with similar goals and agendas dismiss the theory for two obvious reasons:
1. they desperately want the pyramids to be of Egyptian origin so they get the credit for building them;
2. their ancestors are responsible for the partial destruction of the pyramid's outer layers which were used to construct buildings in Cairo.
Lesson one in the act of lies and deceit is by praising yourself and by always putting the blame on someone else.
@@SCEPSIS-zw9wv or just so they can milt an crazy amount of money from visitors by foreshadowing an idea that pyramids were build by aliens or superior knowledge of ancient Egyptians
Because when you think about it there is just "concrete"
Nothing is mysterious and magical anymore and doesnt attrack visitor
@@kristialb2680 its not concrete its limestone and the limestone decay on the sphinx proved that it wasn’t only a few thousand years old its in fact 12 thousand years old at the least. Also all methods we’ve tried simulating that they could have used to build them are all false or they just wanted to absolutely build these pyramids despite how fucking tedious and back breaking it would be EVEN for the slaves. They’d all die before the whole thing is finished so they either cycled them out group by groups or they just tryna find a way to explain the pyramids that make sense and fit the narrative of how school taught us how they were built and how the government wants us to be limited on our knowledge of human history for some fucked up reason. They want you guys to be dumb and you all clearly are misguided . Well not all but most
Dont insult
UA-cam tells me there are 4 comments yet I only see one
Thought i clicked the wrong video and almost clicked away before realizing rhat Simon was indeed hosting.
He is Simon's podcast partner. 🖖
Hes the owner/writer of every video.
His audio is astonishingly bad.
Daven usually just writes the videos I guess this time he did the sponsor ship part
@@RinnzuRosendale owner? Very cringe
Idk, seems like pretty concrete evidence to me.
🥁 Ba dum tts🏆
@Pimp Jerk fr definitely top underrated comment of the year
Oh, Be'have !
I agree. It makes absolute sense.
Umm you just have to look at the left over obelisks still embeded in the quarrys to know that they were not using cement of any kind.
They probably put the quarried stone down and were like, "jesus man, that shit was ridiculous, and the aliens aren't returning our phone calls. There's got to be a better way to do this."
I loved the jesus part
Why should we return their calls? Do humans help chimpanzees pile rocks? No. Why should we?
😂😂😂😂
then it would be "wait, who the fuck is jesus?"
Aliens skipped their shift to pop a few crop circles ;)
8:45 That Egyptian guy said that believing cement was used was "idiotic and insulting", but gives no explanation why. He is the one being idiotic and insulting. He is probably against the idea because maybe he fears it'll take some of the mystique away, and somehow hurt tourism.
He did give solid reasons they just didn't show it here
Tourism was what came to mind first to me as well.
The real reason is that the blocks were not poured and were cut and quarried. We have proof of this through geological chemical composition testing.
@@brando8248 only for the granit portions, everything else that mainstream science uses comes from Egyptian scientists that haven't changed their stance in like 70 years . All tests are done by them otherwise it's illegal by Egyptian law for along time now.
@@brando8248 also givin human error the pyramids would be crooked in one way or another no matter how perfect the craftsman. Now multiply that by 10000s of craftsman that built the pyramids. The human error would be exponentially impossible not to happen without a mold to make things far more perfect. Even if they cut the stone from the quarrys they would lose shape being moved so far, so possibly maybe the concrete was added to the outside of these cut stones to make them more perfect, or they were just made to perfection sometimes when it couldn't be cutt perfectly
"The theory is idiotic and insulting."
He said without any sense of irony.
gutspraygore Zahi Hawass is a bastard. Don't listen to him. He has no credibility
Yes, I wondered why he thinks it is insulting. The theory basically says the Egyptians invented concrete. Insulting..?
@Max Powers That's a common problem, a lot of "experts" DON'T know what they're talking about in a great many fields, and rely upon others just knowing a little bit less.
@@LeoH3L1 Being an "Expert" just means that person has mastered the accepted "truths" about the subject matter. Anything that challenges the accepted truths will of course confound such a person.
Zahi Hawass loves his rocks... I guess that's why he's so dense. Huehuehue... don't SHOOT ME!!!
I love how angry the egyptologists got at people doing actual science .
They hate it when they are challenged with science and facts because it erodes their thin Veneer of bullshit.
Actually they have good reason to argue against it since some of the blocks used still have the points where they were snapped off at the quarry. They are unfinished and definate proof that at least some of them were quarried. I am not arguing against the concrete idea i am just pointing out that their counter argument has merit and i am sure they have more reasons than just that 1 that i know of.
@@mattking993 maybe they were poured oversize and cut to final size?
@@mattking993 I'm assuming you are talking about the blocks found at the quarry. This could just as easily be written off as them breaking the blocks off for transportation to the processing plant so long as the "concrete" blocks are not missing ingredients that the mined blocks contain. You can add things to concrete but you can't remove .
The reason you would mine blocks and process them elsewhere is to keep your mine clear for mining.
Of course cause once the mystery is solved so is the sum of their profits.
"would have required so many trees that egypt would have been deforested"
well... not a lot of forests there these days...
The trees came from Lebanon and had nothing to do with pyramid building.
@@greybone777 at one point there were likely forests there tho... and now there aren't... could just have been massive sloths eating them, or pyramids.
@@greybone777 Correct. They were used among other things to peel plywood to make forms, aka molds for the pour. Anybody of a certain age living around Puget Sound is familiar with log booms. Floating a bunch of logs from Lebanon to the Nile would not be a problem. In fact, it would be a jolly pleasant ride.
Unless they were built earlier than we expect it was. It was basically a damn rainforest until the end of the last ice age.
@@henryhewitt1571 floating all those logs across the sea, wow
I originally found this theory in a 3.5 hour documentary on UA-cam titled "The Great K Pyramid," or something like that. I then ordered Davidovitts' book "Why the Pharaohs Built the Pyramids with Fake Stones." Great read. Not only does he break down the chemical aspect, but analyzes from mythological standpoints as well. Hieroglyphics were considered as well, as it's unknown whether or not each symbol had one or a variety of meanings. Perhaps the best evidence in my mind was his recreation of various sized blocks using custom wooden moulds. Upon filling the moulds one of the larger moulds began to leak, leaving a distinct crack in the corner. After concluding his experiment he found similar cracks on similar stones found on the Khufu pyramid. I am sold on Davidovitts' theory, but as for the granite I'm unsure for now.
Agree. Cement for the stones. Yes.
How did they mould/shape the granite? No idea. I’m still thinking about it.
The same video mentions solar lenses, and I’m really sold on that idea.
A big flaw in the theory is that the interior blocks are all different sizes, if poured they would have varied little.
@@knight2255 Not at all, you just keep boarding it up and keep pouring on top, you can see the similar shapes they used on walls, the more you interlock the blocks differently, the stronger it is. Pyramids, you just keep them a similar shape, self leveling and just finish them precisely at the corners.
@@producermind9030 Davidovits has his own video on the pyramid on youtube "Building the Pyramids of Egypt with Artificial Stones" his explanation for real looking granite is that it's real granite from a quarry.
Some dismiss his theory based on the assumption that his claim is all material is reaglomoraeted, ignoring that this is not what he is saying.
@knight2255
perfect precision is only necessary for the outer layer if you want the smooth surface that was intended, filling up everything else with less precision makes sense as it's simply unnecessary from a builders perspective. An indication if random artificial and random natural shapes could be possible based on the precision of the seams, but I have so far not seen data on this.
I’m still stuck on how and why the invention of ancient concrete that lasts 7000+ years is “insulting.” 🤦🏻♂️
Exactly! If anything it's a more intelligent and elegant solution than brute-forcing the construction with quarried blocks.
Because it's plausible and relatively easy. It suggests that ancient Egyptians were in fact NOT capable of superhuman feats, but just very resourceful. People don't like it when you expose the man behind the curtain.
Well, modern concrete is only expected to stay sound for 200 to 300 years. So accepting that an ancient concrete would last thousands is hard for modern engineers to swallow. This despite the fact Roman concrete 2,000 plus years old has been found still intact.
@@bluelionsage99 That said I think I read/heard somewhere that the recipe for roman concrete was rediscovered recently, maybe we'll be making a return to form on long-lasting concrete structures
@@bluelionsage99 It seems that in the case of the pyramids, it was not so much ancient concrete but a method to reconstitute crushed limestone back into solid stone blocks. The aggregate and the cement are one in the same thing, unlike concrete where the aggregate is a separate material bound by the cement.
Concrete still makes the engineering no less impressive!!!
It makes it more impressive, as it's a more elegant, sophisticated solution to a problem rather than using brute force. It doesn't mean the theory is right or wrong, of course.
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 This video seemed to explain that the granite was quarried while the limestone was poured. I did not hear a question or comment about the lower stones not poured but you may be right. I have never been to the pyramids nor am I a chemist or geologist of any type to be able to tell them apart anyway. and actually, to have seams is just saying they were poured individually and not all at the same time. The mystery continues because it was never written how they were constructed and the fact they didn't write it down might indicate it was a normal and well known practice at that time to which way they did it. Still a fun mystery to ponder... =D
@Robert Flask If it were true, probably. The fluid dynamics involved in such an undertaking as that would be pretty high if I don't miss a guess.
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 I agree!!
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 The granite work, however, is a tiny fraction of the other stonework in the pyramid, in both quantity of material and hours of labor required to shape and place them. You save an enormous amount of time and treasure by just doing the granite work and pouring the limestone blocks. I think if a quarry could be found nearby that had natural limestone of the same composition as the pyramids' limestone it would prove the conventional theory. However an inability to find natural limestone in the area that matches the composition of the pyramid limestone lends strong credence to the theory it was poured. And the kicker is it isn't be some new and amazing technology the Egyptians alone had and disappeared with the pyramid-building Pharoahs, humans had been using concrete for thousands of years before the pyramids were built. Why wouldn't they use concrete for the blocks and dress up the interior with granite? look around your neighborhood or maybe even your own home, builders and architects do the very same thing to this very day. : )
Even if it was pored concrete, it is still an amazing feat of engineering that modern society should strive for. Where I live we can't get a patch of road concrete to last a winter.
Winters in Egypt are a real killer. Sometimes you get up to .01 inches of snow!
"And Pharaoh said to his people: “I have not known a god for you other than myself; so Haman, light me a fire to bake clay so that I could build a rise high enough, maybe I see Moses’ god whom I think is a liar.”
[Quran 28.38]
How could an illiterate man who lived 1400 years ago have known that those uppermost blocks were made from baked clay? (Ancient Concrete) How did he know the Pyramids at all were of such great height?
Hate to break it to you, but limestone wouldn't hold up in winters either.
@@naeemkashmir722
Clay is nothing like concrete made out of limestone. You could just as well say that clay and modern concrete are the same.
Besides, some of Muhammed's companion were very litterate, like Harith ibn Kalada, who studied medicine at a school named Jundishapur.
@@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear its not the same as modern cincrere but it has comcrete strength. There are many studies to show this. Its acknowledged by western sources. Pls research rather than being blind.
Hhaha do you know what the houses were made of in arabia during the 7th century? They were not made of concrete lol so what ie your point? Why would anyone in the middle of a desert in 7th century Arabia care about Egypt??
Do you know that the pyramid knowledge was losr to time til the rosetta stone. Even the Quran answers the pyramid text directly if you do a little research.
While Davidovitz's hypothesis is intriguing it, along with others as you noted, suffers from significant weaknesses. 1) While the blocks may be "compositionally identical" to the local limestone (he suggests this as evidence of the raw material) this fails to eliminate that the blocks were actually quarried from this material.
2) Opal is a component of both the local limestone and the blocks. Crushing the limestone and casting it into blocks would not only crush the opal, but the cast blocks would be dissociated from the groundwater geochemical conditions necessary to form "new" opal, so this would need to be explained.
3) The native limestone is full of a one-cell, marine fossil Foraminifera called Numulites, which produced a flat, coiled shell ranging in size from a small button to a half dollar. These lived in seas 55-35 million years ago. Numulitic limestone comprises most of the blocks in the pyramids. Although Numulites are large, being composed of calcium carbonate, they are not hard, and would be readily crushed by the grinding process needed to make cement. They are intact in the pyramids' blocks by the millions.
4) Petrographic thin sections (slices of rock glued to microscope slides and ground so thin polarized light will pass through) made from pieces of pyramid rock show intact microtextures that require varying pore-water chemistries to form. These would not develop from a single pour and subsequent exposure to meteoric water. (Oil companies did extensive exploration on the Giza Plateau back in the 1950's).
5) The compelling presence of granite was rather dismissed as "only constituting a small percent of the rock in the pyramid". While true, being a very hard, intrusive igneous rock having large, intact crystals, is incapable of being crushed and cast. The Egyptians' ability to quarry it would make working with the soft Numulitic limestone easy.
Davidowitz poses interesting questions but he should have consulted a Geologist with experience in carbonate petrography (absolutely NOT Scott Wother) before he's published. Had he done so, he would have seen why his hypothesis is untenable.
BTW, I have a PhD in Geology/Geophysics and considerable experience in Petrography.
Your comment is full of holes
I can't writing that much, have 1 example.
You say in 5, about water pores not being formed in x....
What if they made the pyramid like bunkers
Multiple layered pours for single blocks, making it stronger
Like there's more too
Can't be bothered writing that mucn
there is no crushing of the material to make "cement"... the cement is made from clay, natron, and lime... the aggregate is loose and relatively large stones and rubble that contain both opal and fossils... what gave you the idea there was grinding involved, you are exposing that you don't know how concrete is made and you don't even know the difference between concrete and cement, he's proved his theory by making the same material which contains opal if the original contained opal... his man made limestone blocks were/are indistinguishable from the material in the actual pyramids (includes fossils and opal if opal is a part of it) and he's shown how to make concrete geopolymer out of granite or andesite too, the casing material was also man made geopolymers
That minute and a half ad intro was pretty sucky.
There's a way to scroll through and fast forward thru the video for a reason. . I agree tho, ad should have at least been at the end of the video
@KtotheD J only works on popular ads, doesnt when It's the first 2mins of the vid.
Dude, ... what u said is purely insulting u know. U watch for free and yet u complain about an ad? get real and respect the creators. Ps Yt Prem here. Am jobless rn due to covid btw. Yes am dong fine thank u.
@@MonographicSingleheaded Feedback is encouraged, big fella. Chill your sauce.
@@MonographicSingleheaded your use of punctuation and poor grammer is almost as annoying as the minute plus ad,...
Out of all the possibilities I’ve ever heard, this, by far, makes the most logical sense
@@andrewholdaway813 No way you could do it 1 go. The forms would be inlmpossibly massive and would have to hold back the hydraulic pressure of an entire pyramids worth of concrete. If you do it in chunks you can reuse forms. Not to mention how would they mix it all at once? I for one buy onto this concrete theory as the most plausible explanation to date.
@@andrewholdaway813 No, your explanation is confusing, I keep re-reading it and don't understand your point. How does using the roughly cut inner blocks to support subsequent blocks, result in a humongous block of concrete? And you say, 'If the pyramid was cast from a form concrete why would it be in discrete blocks?' suggests that you are saying that instead of casting blocks of concrete, that they built an actual form (or cast) shaped like a pyramid to pour (or cast) the concrete into, which as Robert points out, would be completely impossible since no structure (at least not in those times and nearly impossible now with modern technology) would be able to retain the hydraulic force of that much liquified cement. Plus, it is clear that they are discrete blocks, not an entire cast form.
@@andrewholdaway813 You're more thorough explanation makes much more sense, and I agree it is unlikely that they had the technology for self-setting concrete, otherwise there would be other examples of it being used besides, like statues or defensive walls for example.
@@andrewholdaway813
There are so many mysteries of the past that I would love to know. Like who figured out fire, and cooking food on it. Wouldn't it be amazing if we could figure out who decided to try intentionally putting animal meat, or mixtures of plant matter onto a fire to make better food? Domesticating animals, forming villages and towns. But the cooking thing, which I think was the key to human evolution, that is what I would so love to know. But the pyramids are quite a mystery themselves.
@@richardduerr9983 I've had this thought also about cooking food. My best theory is hominids found a burnt carcass after, say a forest fire, and ate it. Cooked food is easier to digest than raw food. They probably liked how it tasted and how it made their stomachs work much less. Just my own theory.
I will gladly take this ancient concrete theory over ancient aliens any day, ancient concrete at least doesn't erase the wonder of human accomplishment.
EDIT: (looks at reply number) ...holy god damn am I suddenly glad my reply notifications aren't working...and so full of anti-science nonsense and conspiracy too...at least there're plenty of people rebutting it, but guys, I think y'all are arguing with brick walls here...
But muh History Channel!
Agreed:
Keep in mind - Ancient Rome had Concrete, but the Holy Roman Empire did not....
it is wrong tho
@@feliperamos9191 The ego on scientist is immense.
I would give serious thought on any theory over ancient aliens, with the exception of ESP...
And where did the ancient Egyptians get all of the advanced maths, knowledge and sciences to do all of this. They just magically learned it all right before the making of the pyramids ... then just magically forgot it all, and destroyed all traces of any such knowledge? You're gonna have to prove that.
Fire, probably :(
If only there was some -- ahem -- concrete evidence.
I'll see myself out.
Bravo.
You will find wood stuck in the stone
@John Barber yes that went over my head. I get it now lmao
😃😃😃
My guess is they started off with quarried stone and suffered cost and time overruns, and decided to finish with concrete.
The design elements suggest that using granite was part of the plan, like using Iron rebars while pouring concrete.
"This project is going to run over time and budget. These stones are taking far longer to set than anticipated"
"Alright, bugger using granite for the rest of them then.."
Or use nice polished granite and limestone for the visible areas, and cheap concrete for the fill areas no one will see (until 4000 years later)
@@dangerrangerlstc they're structural ua-cam.com/video/eGqfdXkAQMk/v-deo.html not that a huge pile of precise stones wouldn't be impressive already but it isn't just a pile it's a building, with bones
@@snooks5607 fill areas can be structural too. Like fill on the back side of a earth dam, the weight is important, but what its made out of isn't necessarily that important
It's also worth mentioning that an analysis on the blocks showed that tiny iron filings in the bricks from different parts of the pyramids were all found to be pointing magnetic north. That's only a possible scenario if the blocks were poured at the site. What are the odds they were all carved and happened to be places in the exact same orientation as they were in the quarry?
The actual theory in question freely admits that 90% of the blocks are solid quarried stone. They only claim a few of the very highest stones were possibly poured.
@@nodak81 still makes it's construction much more feasible
@UCDS1Gbu2zBXpxByAdVHrdjw the higher you get on the pyramid would signify that they couldn't do it from the ground lvl anymore and transport it. Plus it's only stuck at a low percent because they can't test every rock without destroying the pyramid. Think about it . Those numbers you were given were complete guesses, and they were made that way so mainstream science would not shut them down for trying to change the narrative 🙄
@@nodak81 scientists are not even allowed to get samples from the pyramids most of the time, and every time it points toward something that's different from the narrative they shut it down instantly. Most of the research done was against Egyptian law and has been undermined. So all these people saying otherwise haven't even seen real data and have only seen the fake reports made by Egyptian scientists that haven't done a thing to learn anything about the pyramids for over 60 years
The quarried blocks were put there by aliens. That’s never been in question. The poured concrete blocks were made by humans because the aliens didn’t know how to pour concrete. Didn’t you watch the video?
Quite absurd. The so-called "Diary of Merer" details limestone deliveries to Giza.
-In the ruins of the work camps we have the remains of tools for cutting and polishing stone, but not for pouring concrete.
-Pouring concrete is self-leveling, but only for that particular block. That means every block would need to have the precise amount of concrete to be level with it's lateral companions, however the blocks are not of a uniform width. Why bother making molds of different sizes in width and depth?
-Where are the mold marks? Ancient Roman aqueducts show the "fingerprints" of wooden molds into which the concrete was poured. Yes, the Pyramids are much older, but many of the stones are pristine and show no such markings.
-Concrete requires a heating process to chemically prepare the concrete to properly bind. You don't simply mix a bunch of stuff together and you have concrete. Such heating would require vast kilns and fuel. There is evidence for ovens at Giza, but they are for making bread and are not appropriate for concrete. We know these are bakeries based on the presence of millstones and pottery.
-We know the Egyptians used wooden sleds, not only from the artwork but we actually have examples. For instance the Sledge from mortuary complex of Senwosret I which is in the Met Museum in New York. We have no evidence of a means of moving water or wet concrete up so high. It's difficult to move a heavy stone up many meters. It's even harder to move heavy water and mortar up the same path without spilling it.
-If the Egyptians could move the giant granite stones into position, there is no reason to think they couldn't have done it with smaller, more easily worked limestone.
-A top down view of the great pyramid reveals an interesting clue: the interior stones are skewed in one direction, the exterior stones are aligned much more precisely to the cardinal coordinates. But when the tops of the pyramids were made, if they were poured with "such great precision", why would they be skewed in such a way? Wouldn't it be easier to square the molds off and pour?
Ah yes, Zahi Hawass; that bastion of truth and honesty.
I think he got tossed for illegal trafficking of artifacts. He is a piece work for sure.
@@mmercier0921 He ravaged Tut's mummy.
right? I heard Zahi Hawass thinks it bullshit and it immediately convinced me that it is indeed scientific fact.
This actually makes a lot of sense. Considering that Greeks and Romans were one of the first people to use concrete and the Greeks had strong ties to Egypt in trade. So what if the Greeks and Romans learned how to make concrete from the Egyptians?
Romans made their concrete out of lime, volcanic ash, and seawater. I don’t know of any such concrete found in Egypt
Romans came along 2000 years after the pyramids were built. Pyramids were as old to the Romans as the Romans are to us.
@@mgreco712 look one culture sees something sees that it's good and replicates it or make it better using resources they naturally have
@@justaregularguynamednoah1581 It’s also possible the Romans developed concrete independently
@@mgreco712 look I'm out here to question shit bro I'm out here with an open mind. I'm trying to look at it from a different perspective.
The only possible explanation is that Aliens flew hundreds of light years here, so they could build some stone structures and make crop circles.
And anal probes, don't forget the anal probes.
I will never forget that. Or forgive. He owes me dinner.
Duh
@@TheGrungy1 wow what a low bar and it's a wonder why women get taken advantage of.
@@jonathanday4553
Ironic that someone who calls herself "sillygoose" has zero sense of humor.
Offended native: "No, my ancestors weren't some genius chemical engineers and inventors. They were OOK OOK ME CUT BIG ROCK"
Weird flex, but ok
Yeah it's insulting to those people. Same EXACT energy as, "They couldn't engineer a pathogen in a laboratory because they eat wild bats from medieval style markets that still sell bush meat."
This is the most viable theory yet. Also explains an assortment of other ancient structures. Geopolymer can be made from an assortment of stone types and outperforms concrete in many cases. Highly feasible theory.
A Florida man build a castle of huge rocks several tons each by hand. A Michigan man literally moves rocks weighing 25 tons or more by hand…by himself…and using nothing but handmade tools that the Egyptians had and pebbles. If one man can use leverage to complete such a task then I’m certain the Egyptians could with all their slaves
Once you find out about Tartaria & The Mud Floods Etc all of this starts to make complete sense, the people that built these structures & buildings harvesting electricity from the Ether, NOT by slaves and low IQ ancient people but by highly advanced humans that we're not told about and this history is hidden and we get lies hinting towards some Aliens, the Reality is the Tartarian Empire and using free energy.
We are living in a more barbaric dirty electrical society the ancient people did not.
Research this truth, we also don't live on a Globe in Infinite space but thats another Truth for your soul to seek.
@@Carmichael_ Your truth is only true to you. If you are attempting to convince someone you need to provide reasons for that person to be convinced. As it stands, your comment is a bunch of unbacked claims.
@@Carmichael_ I don't think you understand what proper research is.
How did they bake and then crush millions of tons of limestone into a powder to make so much concrete? What kind of lime kilns and crushing tools did they use? Where did they get the fuel for so many lime kilns? No other concrete structure has been built anywhere close to this size until the 20th century. Concrete takes an enormous amount of energy to produce in such quantities.
I wish one of my ancestors would have had stock in Giza Ready Mix. All of my relatives would be trillionaires by now.
😃😃😃
If you read Davidovits’ books, watch his videos on his web site, analyse his critic’s arguments and carefully read those studies by independent scientists that support him, you eventually come to the realization that Davidovits is most likely correct. Nobody has a better hypothesis or more scientific evidence in support. In another hundred years students will be saying “Seems obvious. Why did they fight against his ideas?” Answer: Ego, politics, self importance.
I often think of how future generations will look back on ours…
It’s not looking like it’ll be very good if I’m honest.
Because everyone thinks that it is their theory that will make future people go "Sounds obvious."
That's ironically the most obvious part that people don't get when they accuse others of arrogance and hubris, forgetting it is in every human being by nature.
Or the geologic facts that show his hypothesis, however appealing, is incorrect.
Year old comment, but another good example of this is Alfred Wegener theorizing Pangea and continental drift in 1912. His theory is so painfully obvious if you just look at a global map. But on top of just the shape of continental coastlines, he had compelling amounts of fossil evidence as well. He traveled the globe and found fossils of the same species existing at the exact same time on entirely separate continents. The same species on separate continents is otherwise unexplainable unless the landmasses had once been connected. Despite all his evidence, Pangea, plate tectonics, and continental drift was not widely accepted as factual until the mid 1950/60s because the science community had no adequate explanation to the forces that moved the plates. 30 years after his death science was finally like: okay its probably true, sorry.
Scientist: "These ancient Egyptians are so smart they figured out a way to turn limestone into concrete much better than we would have ever imagined! How brilliant of them!"
Prime minister:"no dummy they cut and carry rocks in big way we no get, don't be stupid and make them seem dumb. Old Egypt big smart, cut and carry heavy rock not pour and mix"
@@GryffieTube evidence helps tho, which he has. Also either way my point was this guy made the Egyptians seem waaaay smarter than we already thought, if anything it should be taken as a complement even if wrong, it's better than "oh they couldn't do this, must've had help"
@@GryffieTube "The point - over your head" Smiley wasn't arguing the techniques he was simply stating machoism vs intellect and the disregard to further investigate any possibilities. Seems pretty anti-scientistic on your part, I mean what part of "chemical analysis found both samples to be identical" doesn't make sense?
No. Do not misrepresent the situation pls. For the love of God. Stop that.
1) Your comment starts of with turning an assumption into a fact. That is the first misrepresentation.
2) The second is that the assumption does not even match the unproven theory pushed forward by the chemist.
3) The third one is to assume that not pouring concrete limeblocks dimishes the intelligence of the people from the Old Kingdom, or that anyone else would think like that as a result.
4) The fourth misrepresentation is the insinuation that pouring concrete would be easier to cutting/moving the stone, ignoring the time to dry/harden and the necessary resources, and how this would change logistics.
5) The fifth misrepresentation is the total disregard of the evidence for cutting/moving stoneblocks, which is a lot to ignore. You can not just ignore that.
- A quarry near the pyramids with the same type of stone
- The Merer papyri... Locations of other quarries...
- difference in quality of limestone within quarries and between quarries (nearby pyramid and Tura f.e.)
- Evidence of cutting marks..
- No evidence of these moulds while there is plenty of evidence of boats and sleds...
- Absence of locations of concretemaking practises (descriptions, risidue, moulds,...) and you would think you would find at least traces of that when considering the amount of "limestonebricks" that would have to be made?
-...
The reality, wether some people like it or not, is that there is way more evidence for the cutting/moving of stoneblocks than there is for the pouring theory.
6) I'd just like to add the difference between saying someone is dumb or saying a theory is dumb. Looks like a small difference, but it is in fact a big difference and an important nuance to make. In action you could make a dumb move, but that doesn't guarantee the person is dumb too. It's also the difference of going personal or not. = creating conflict or creating space to discuss respectfully.
We also have to understand that not everyone knows as much of one thing as someone else does and vice versa. A chemist is not a geologist or an egyptologist and vice versa. They can come together however to discuss their findings. That said, and altho Zahi Hawass is understandably very "careful" with hypes, diplomacy and preservation of the pyramids, I would not mind if this chemist - who's not a geologist - was permitted to conduct more research in the manner of gathering more samples (which are limited in his current research).
I will make a small confession tho, I do think Zahi Hawass likes to be the authority on the pyramids... If that is the real reason why he would be careful with invasive research done to the pyramids, I would not be so sure about that.
Precisely lol XD
"The blocks perfectly fit together" this is only true on the outer most face blocks, the inner blocks are quite irregular.
Almost like, like normal humans, they only really cared how the outward facing blocks would look to save time and effort.
It's funny how there's really no mystery to the pyramids at all; they're just big piles of rocks in essence and we know who built what and when and have clear evidence of the style being developed and perfected over time.
@@MajesticSkywhale The only thing as misguided as people thinking the pyramids were built by aliens, are people who think we know all there is to know about how/when/why the pyramids were built.
@@UnknownUzer we don't know all there is, because it was millennia ago. But we do know how, when, and why the pyramids were built, so
You're irregular.
@@UnknownUzer misguided? The alien theory is flat out stupid.
Content starts at 1:33
That is a long advertisement, almost 15% of the video.
Yeah, even worse there is already ads on TOP of the video that google/youtube have on the video since it's monetized. Literally around 1/4th of the video on average is ads that's tv levels of bad.
@@dotapazappy Nothing is free in this world but this is pretty close. Not sure why you're complaining.
@@rbach2 Mostly because it used to be free.
@@chemicalratt939 free is never forever, it should be obvious that it would not be sustainable
@@rbach2 maybe your time is free, but mine is not
Archiologists: “how were they able to fit these two blocks so perfectly together with no gap between them???”
Egyptians: just poured concrete...
Just think, if they had an internal ramp so that people could carry buckets up to the top...
@@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391 carrying buckets of cement?
Egyptologist: nah thats a stupid idea. Dragging a 5 ton rock with ropes is a much better
@@lifes40123 I saw one thing about " how they built the pyramids " that proposed that they built a water tight tunnel up the side of the pyramid, and used buoyancy devises to float the blocks to the top, they didn't seem to realise that building a water tight shoot, to handle the considerable water pressure of 139 meters head of water, not to mention water tight doors at the bottom would be considerably more difficult and technical to make than a pyramid.
Of course they could have trained dinosaurs to carry the blocks....
Problem no1. The pyramid is made out of granite
@@BetamaxV .3% of it
Erosion might be the most powerful evidence to prove that the pyramid stones were poured cement concrete. First, erosion is happening almost universally to all the pyramid stones coming to our eyes. Secondly, the erosion on some megaliths revealed a crumb within the megaliths' crust. The crumb was made up with bricks of different sizes and colours. Thirdly, no similar erosion is happening to any other stones in other places than the pyramid complex such as the alleged quarry site in Aswan. Fourth, erosion can also be used to prove the granites to be poured cement concrete because many granite blocks have lost half of their original mass.
it was a power plant
So in other words. The Pyramids weren’t by stones. Its all cement with a mixture of other things. Because if were stones, it would not erode?
Where exactly are these granite blocks that have lost half of their weight located? Because the great pyramid only has granite on the INSIDE, so how could it possibly have eroded, from the inside, to such a degree that it lost half of its weight?
What you say makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. How can something possibly erode from the INSIDE OUT? Moreover, granite is a conglomerate igneous rock. If a rock is igneous in origin, it’s very easy to tell the difference from non-igneous rocks.
Regarding your erosion at Aswan, again, where, exactly, are you supposedly checking to see that no other similar erosion has taken place? Aswan is a QUARRY, not a monument. Therefore, none of the stone FROM Aswan is just laid out in the open to weather for thousands of years, so how could you have any clue whether it has eroded to the same degree?
Your claims are just bullshit with zero evidence and zero scientific basis. Just because you have a dream and write it down doesn’t make it true.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 : The granite blocks that have eroded to half of their original size can be seen in this video: ua-cam.com/video/EaQr917lRgI/v-deo.html.
When you open it, you just fast forward to 19:29 and pause or stop there.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 ： Were you convinced?
I have been aware of this for nearly a decade when I learned that a civil engineer from University of Illinois (an expert in concrete) visited the great pyramids of Egypt. He is highly confident that what he daw was concrete. He even went as far as to locate where the concrete was mixed. Besides, learning how to make concrete is not that far from making mud bricks.
Once you find out about Tartaria & The Mud Floods Etc all of this starts to make complete sense, the people that built these structures & buildings harvesting electricity from the Ether, NOT by slaves and low IQ ancient people but by highly advanced humans that we're not told about and this history is hidden and we get lies hinting towards some Aliens, the Reality is the Tartarian Empire and using free energy.
We are living in a more barbaric dirty electrical society the ancient people did not.
Research this truth, we also don't live on a Globe in Infinite space but thats another Truth for your soul to seek.
@@Carmichael_ egyptians came up with the round earth. As well as time. lol
@@Carmichael_ mud flood? Oh fvck off.
@@Carmichael_ "Low IQ ancient people"? Same anatomy, same IQ potential.
@@Carmichael_ where is the best place to learn about this? Who is the best person to watch?
Occam's Teacup: The simplest explanation is "Aliens."
Because it rests in a Saucer.
You Sir are a genius, for this you win the internet, you have given me the best laugh of the evening. Thank you.
@@kingoneeyed3433 Yeah, it's one of my favorite jokes, thanks. (I've also got Occam's Guillotine: Skipping the experiment, and looking for the "Proof" of your assumption is like cutting off your head, so you don't have to shave. It's all part of Occam's Arsenal.)
Why did Occam cross the Mobius Strip? (Answer: So he could get to the same side.)
burlap pattern found in the limestone block have convinced me that geopolymer was used. No one is going to carve a pattern like burlap in rock for no good reason.
So, that makes way more sense than any other theories I’ve heard and it’s probably what accounts for the appearance of erosion on the surface of the blocks. There was a guy on JRE that was ruffling the feathers of Egyptologists with his geological findings, that showed surface erosion consistent with it being rained on for quite a long time period. The problem with that is that it would’ve meant that the pyramids were far older than we had originally thought, by tens of thousands of years-and I’m not willing to dismiss his observations because the timeframe makes it implausible. It just means that there’s another reason it would look like it does today, and I’d bet that if you compared the erosion patterns of Limestone concrete blocks to cut Limestone, I’d bet that the concrete blocks would probably appear more eroded than not.
In any case, if I were betting on any of these theories, I’d want my money on this one.
That was the Sphinx, not the pyramids.
@@MrEazyE357 it is possible the site is much older than the sphinx itself. Its a great theory and would be awesome if true though. Its not unknown for significant religous/holy/worship sights being used for a very long time for many things.
There are fossils in some of the blocks. I struggle to understand how a fossil could survive being ground up. So i'm leaning towards a lost technology / technique. Or they found the pyramids.
Some of the best advice I ever received at University was "Every theory should be viewed as potentially correct until you can conclusively show it to be false"
That’s really bad advice and the defeats the purpose of falsifiability. People use that logic to say that aliens built the pyramids and god made the earth using magic
@@matthewjohnson3656 Very true, but this was meant not to say that aliens or -insert god of choice here- did a thing, more as a reminder to keep an open mind and not discredit an idea simply because you disagree with it. And remember, the ancient egyptian concrete theory has some merit, while the alien/god theory has ZERO evidence to back it.
(edit) gave your comment a like, you are very correct in your criticism, far too many fools use false logic and bad science
@@LittleRabbit1138 Exactly. we shouldn't consider a theory until there is SOME evidence, and then we should only have confidence in it as far as the evidence points to it exclusively being the answer.
@@matthewjohnson3656 Sherlock Holmes said it perfectly, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish :
"The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi"
m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
Stone retains water, pouring any liquid creates suction, not a sliding effect,. What they are pouring is sand or something like fine gravel. When you "sandwich" sand between two pieces of stone, the stone becomes fairly easy to move. This technique is used even today. You can test this yourselves. Next time when you go to the beach, throw some sand on leveled hard surface, like a sidewalk,,then place a solid flat object on top of it. Step on it, and watch how fast it slides and you fall on your arse.
Now drag an 80 ton block up a steep slope, before it slides back down again. remember, the slope/ramp would have taken nearly as much material to build.
They're pouring water _on_ sand to make it a surface such that the sled won't dig in. This technique has been tested and shown to work, greatly reducing the work required to pull the blocks over the surface that actually existed between the river and the pyramid locations.
Transporting it over hard flat surfaces (which I don't deny that sand would help with) is the easy part and doesn't require someone standing on the sled pouring the stuff right in front of said sled.
You seem to be mixing up the challenges of moving the blocks to the construction site and lifting them to height.
l o l
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 what angle would this ramp be at, say .5 of the height of the pyramid?
I once saw a PBS special where they built a small pyramid. One thing I noticed about it was that the only time that the onsite foremen was able to get anything done, was when he threw the Egyptologists off the site.
Also if they figured out how to cast limestone they could've figured out a way to cast multiple minerals including granite. I'd love to see more studies and reverse engineering of this theory!
+1
@@uwatmusic Except we know the granite was quarried at Aswan. There is not doubt about that whatsoever. The quarries are still with the same mineral structure as the granite used in the pyramids. There's even an obelisk still in place in the quarry that was pounded out of the granite and is much larger than any granite used in the pyramids.
ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
I’ve always wondered if they could take pieces of granite from the quarry and use them to make a concrete. Then it would have a similar structure but a much more practical way of transport. Who knows. With all the information suppression we probably won’t ever know.
Granite has a different structure to limestone. Limestone is sedimentary and compresses rather that grows similar to sandstone native American Pipestone. Granite is metamorphic. Which means it grew and changed. And should one sufficiently heat it up or grind it up into appropriate means of making concrete you would find it would turn from granulated to closer to greyish with less character n pattern.
Finally a “theory” that sits well in my mind lol
"And Pharaoh said to his people: “I have not known a god for you other than myself; so Haman, light me a fire to bake clay so that I could build a rise high enough, maybe I see Moses’ god whom I think is a liar.”
[Quran 28.38]
How could an illiterate man who lived 1400 years ago have known that those uppermost blocks were made from baked clay? (Ancient Concrete) How did he know the Pyramids at all were of such great height?
@@naeemkashmir722 So what?
@@TheBaconWizard ua-cam.com/video/c2ovILc_sKY/v-deo.html
pls explain how this was known.
@@naeemkashmir722 It wasn't known, it was alleged and the brainwashed minions automatically say yes to authority.
@@TheBaconWizard you are so stupid lol i actually don't even have the energy to reply. Did you even watch the link i posted?
I always hate people claiming pyramids were built by aliens because they always dismiss the idea that people back in ancient times were pretty damn clever
Not to forget hard working. We often overlook that even where older civilisations were more intelligent than we credit them for a lot of their achievements involved simple "brute force"
This seems to be one of the main arguments used by academia... Nobody who questions the origins of the pyramids automatically assume ancient people were bumbling idiots that didn't accomplish great things. Whether it was aliens, or a lost civilization from before the younger dryas period, the science is official... a lot of these megalithic constructions are 12+ thousand years old, and we really don't anything about the builders, or the culture that produced them.
If you keep watching there’s a post credit scene. Something about pyramids.
Haha! Burn!
In thousands of years time a archaeologist digs up a iPhone. Archaeologist: “How did such primitive peoples create this?!”
His mate down the pub: “Aliens!”
It would actually make more sense to build the rooms with quarried stone then use poured blocks for the remainder.
I had to read your comment twice to make sure you weren't using "then" for "than".
Today's low rate of literacy on the Internet makes me do my best to avoid using certain words just so people don't have to pause when reading what I have written when they come across certain words.
@@acoow I don't know man... Your sentence composition is hot garbage. Read your second sentence to yourself (out loud if you have to), then ask yourself again exactly how superior you think you are.
@@acoow did you just inaccurately attempt to grammar nazi someone? That is worse than doing it in the first place.
It could well be some form of ritual where those tombs and rooms WERE quarried stone then enclosed using the poured concrete as a form of "headstone"
@@TyroPirate I'd rather deal with what you think is "superiority" than with your need to insult someone, just so you can feel better.
I personally think it's more impressive they could have invented concrete than just moving big rocks.
the romans had concrete. also look up mudflood, there is a past beneath us
“Just moving big rocks”
Making concrete is a lot easier to conceptualise and execute than moving colossal, perfectly smooth stones safely & reliably, let alone precisely.
@@frankwren8215 yeah, with only wood sleds across miles of blazing sand, makes much more sense to bring bags made of animal skins filled with powder, maybe even dig a canal from the Nile to some of the way to the pyramid site to have better access to water than to haul enormous stones. The Egyptians were smart, no doubt they would have seen that hauling blocks with brute force is a waste of time and energy.
@@tatotaytoman5934 people have been carving rocks and stacking them into monuments for ~12,000 years, I think the Egyptians could figure it out.
Also, we have the quarries, and we know they cut the limestone in those areas. Why would they even quarry that if they had ready concrete, and why wasn’t it everywhere if it was so useful and practical compared to moving stone, which, again, wouldn’t have been that hard for Bronze Age societies.
i love how business blaze simon is slowly creeping into all his channels
I love how some one says the SAME EXACT comment literally every video. 🙄
Beep boop intitate: originalfunnycomment.exe
Beeeep boop
@@ARF_average Joined Dec 22, 2014
I would expect Erik to have more than two subscribers on one of his alternate channels. WHO ARE YOU FIEND?!?!?!?!
@@user-ellievator a humble student
@@ARF_average As am I. Well done, sir. Bounce on.
"all of Egypt would have had to have been deforested" I mean......where did the trees all go anyway?
Thanks for covering this. Really. It's about time someone with a voice said something. It's is such an obvious solution to a "baffling" question.
TIFO: would require so many trees that Egypt would have been deforested.
Ra: So you've never heard of the Sahara forest?
TIFO: you mean desert?
Ra: It is now...
to be fair it prob wouldn't of been the first time a people used up all their wood
@@robert48044 happened to me last night. My lady was not impressed.
@@ddieter02 they never are, lol
@@robert48044
Easter Island. They hunted all the animals and cut down all the trees so they couldn't make ships to move to another Island.
@@robert48044 wouldn't have
I like this new theory. The ancients had secrets for making concrete that we still don't understand.
If I had to make a pyramid today, I'd use concrete. It all makes sense.
If you made a pyramid today out of concrete it wouldn’t get through planning permission.
Concrete is horrible for the environment much easier to just make a hollow frame structure with a stone facade. Also won’t kill the planet.
Facts! The Romans knew how to pour concrete under water and get it to setup.
Expanded polystyrene!
Or empty boxes like they use in car chase scenes in movies.
📦
📦📦📦
📦📦📦📦📦
📦📦📦📦📦📦📦
📦📦📦📦📦📦📦📦📦
"Pyramid and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, and optical and SEM-scale properties characteristic of normal microporous limestones, and they are cut by tectonic fractures. Block dimensions and shapes are not likely to be the product of pouring into wooden molds, and some blocks show quarrying marks." -- Folk and Campbell (2018)
ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
@@johnzy78 That video is nearly 4 hours long. What's the timestamp for where it addresses those observations?
Zahi Hawass has done more to hold back academic research than any other Egyptologist in history.
@@GryffieTube you may not be gatekeeper but you are incredibly rude!
Maybe, but Graham Hancock has done more damage and held back the public understandings of the Egyptians then any person in history, all to sell some books.
@@usemythirdarm Graham Hancock and the likes*
I agree. These people are the quacks of science.
I loathe their lack of intellectual honesty and context in anything that has to do with finding out "truth" while focussing only what they want to be true, and that's just not how science works!
"...al of Egypt would have had to have been deforested." Well, you don't see many trees in Egypt today, DO You? Lol. Someone is totally going to run with this. It's 2020.
#egyptiantreesmatter
Scrawny, little guy is trying to get a job as a lumberjack and is asked about his experience. He reply that he worked in the Sahara. "BUT its a desert"! "It is now".
I edited it for brevity, but you get it.
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish :
"The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi"
m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
and the mountains are gone as well.
Joe Blow, according to another UA-camr the pyramid was built on top of a rock hill/small mountain, so all the Egyptians did was built around it (probably knocked a few years off the building project, if they would start from a flat ground level)
Carrying dirt and water building from the bottom up makes it a lot less impressive. The simplest solution is usually the answer. We love to overthinking things
Agreed it's not only usually the right answer but the best way to understand anything. The difference between a genius and an idiot is that a genius admires simple solutions. An idiot admires solutions that he himself can barely understand. Having said that just because they are geologically different doesn't mean its the wrong answer. It could imply that there is a missing ingredient for lack of better terminology.
Too me it's more impressive, because it's smarter.
@@spaken2768 how can you say it's smarter when you don't know how they actually did it
This guy clearly watched " Pyramid 4k 2019"..... The guy who made that video is a champion. 3 hours of greatness.
I've been saying this for years. Same for the "impossible" masonry in south America
And the impossibly detailed temples across India and Asia. All cast stone. Higher tech than we have now.
Of this, I am not so sure. In some cases - specifically those where the rocks seem to 'melt' into each other, I would agree. In other cases, particularly those involving granite - I am more skeptical.
For certain, several ancients, the romans included, seemed to have developed various mortar mixtures revolving around volcanic compounds which produce generally superior masonry to today's coal-ash derived concrete of mass production.
It makes sense - people have been formulating clays and building with them for thousands of years - the idea that some autist, playing alchemy with various dirt from the broad reaches of an empire, was able to derive a concrete is not all that far fetched. It could only reasonably be done by a relatively large empire with the trade capacity to move material across dozens if not thousands of miles. Hence roman concrete, egyptian pyramids, unnamed empires in south america, etc.
However, casting stone is only a tiny fraction of the challenge of dimensional tolerances. Generally, I would say that casting stone in place would be a hedge against compound error moreso than an explanation for accuracy/precision.
In the case of the pyramids, where we are looking at generally simple bricks, casting makes sense as a means for ensuring repeated accuracy.
However, when we get to, for example, the infamous puma punku - there are seemingly no production techniques present, today, that could reliably produce such interlocking stone structures. Even if they did have a means of casting metamorphic rock, casting such details in the first place introduces as many problems as it solves.
Either way - they knew a few things we don't. Or, at least, haven't put together to do it again.
@@Aim54Delta It appears they used magnesium-based concrete rather than limestone/Calcium. Its vastly stronger. Also, we now have "faux" granite in the form of "quartz" countertops nearly undistinguishable from real stone and more stable...so I am sticking with the ancient geopolymer stone theory, across the entire ancient world.
Then you have been wrong for years
@@Aim54Delta "specifically those where the rocks seem to 'melt' into each other,"
If you are referring to the central and South American ones, the stones were softened with pant based acids
I read about Davidovitt's geopolymer theory in OMNI magazine back in the late 70s. Thank you!
“It would have required all of Egypt to be deforested”....I don’t remember ever seeing any modern photos of Egyptian forests 🤔🧐
it added to their dispersal.. 5 tributaries of the Nile also went missing. there is video on you tube by national geographic, they actually found an untouched box holding a mummy..made of wood, they inscribed into it. Egypt even had termites. The disappearance of termites in the wood, revealed the geological change..and it was rather sudden. Just another mystery.
The climate of the northern half of Africa has changed significantly over the past few thousand years! It wasn’t a desert for at least some of the ancient Egyptian period :’)
Ever wonder why lebanons flag has a cedar tree on it? Egypt imported alot of cedar and what was once a heavily forrested place is no more.
5000 years ago Egypt was lush, forested and criss crossed with rivers. phys.org/news/2013-04-abrupt-widespread-climate-shift-sahara.html#:~:text=The%20Sahara's%20%22green%22%20era%2C,of%20one%20to%20two%20centuries.
Wooden fulcrum and crane can only carry around 1 tonne, due to the length of the fulcrum bar wood couldn't have been used to lift much weight.
It probably would have taken the whole forest of Egypt to build a raft to carry an 80 tonne stone 500 miles . That's a fact. Also the whole water supply.
They also had primitive tools.
What's more likely is an extremely advanced race were driven out of Egypt into Spain and France by the Arab populations. That's why the Norman's knew how to build with stone and rotate crops.
Its also why the Egyptian have no idea how they were built, they didn't build them.
Interestingly the pyramid is on USA dollar with the all seeing eye. Which is connected to the freemason who have architectural devices as their motif.
Let's think through this:
Couldn't they scan the outer stones and look for repeating patterns that would imply the use of a mold?
Also, wouldn't molded (rather than cut) stone would have few, if any, chisel marks?
How much weight could a cast block support?
It's an interesting and novel theory, and is on its face plausible enough to earn further research and testing.
So, let's start with the older (earliest) pyramids and look for evidence of this (or any other) technique.
This mystery can (and will) be solved; IMO, the trick (process) is to take a systematic approach to observing the evolution of the design and building of the structures.
Let's gather and publicly debate the evidence, and then let each of us judge for ourselves to the satisfaction of his/her own reason.
PS: as a trained engineer, one mistake many make is to try to analyze the most complex structure first. Who could possible infer how a computer chip were made if they started with even an 8088 chip, or how a plane flys by analyzing an SR-71? Go back to the step pyramid, through the bent and red pyramids and then the later, greater pyramids, and document apparent techniques in materials and construction. Over time, the pieces of the puzzle will find their place.
If "ancient concrete" was used, then why would the Unfinished Obelisk in Aswan be worked on flat to the ground? Why wouldn't the Egyptians make it easier on themselves and just mold the obelisk already in its position and standing up with this "ancient concrete"?
@@CasanovaPugilist147 Good question, but the answer is, I think pretty straight-forward: granite is much harder than limestone (and concrete made from limestone).
Material internal to a structure (here, the plausible concrete) can be much less environmentally resilient than a 'softer' ancient concrete, allowing for a self-supporting item, which also maintains shape and designs/writing (not to mention, it's just more aesthetic). So, a cast block is consistent with an interior pyramid 'stone' but not with a weather-facing obelisk.
If you want a modern example, go to any old and un-renovated hotel and stay in a room with an older marble countertop (as opposed to a granite or quartz countertop). You'll notice that it's grooved and worn. You'll also see this in older buildings with marble staircases -- they have smooth, worn (often almost angled) staircases. Limestone is software than marble, and ancient concrete is typically software than limestone.
Granite allows for messaging on weather-facing surfaces that lasts for millennia; no concrete (even modern concrete) will hold a clear notched message over centuries, much less millennia (see, for example, any old graveyard).
So, to directly answer your question "why didn't the Egyptians make it easier on themselves and just mold the obelisk already in its position?"
Because: (1) they knew it wouldn't last, (2) it wouldn't look as good, and (3) I'm not convinced that creating a single mold would even work, much less be "easier." Pouring blocks at a time *might* be easier, but you'd still face the issues of longevity of the structure as well as the longevity of the art and writings.
PS: I've seen videos claiming that you can see that denser materials "fall" to the base of each of the block (which would support heavier items settling during casting).
PSS: my main objection the casting theory is that, to me, it would be much harder to grind all that stone, move it, and then use LOTS of precious water (which would also have to be carried), mix it, and then cast -- either in place or at a fixed location -- than to just cut the stones to begin with. I could, however, see some "waste materials" being cast into selected smaller blocks, especially near the top or used to create corner-supports with odd shapes. Still ... it would be great to see some evidence.
@@ThrashLawPatentsAndTMs I see. Wouldn't it make sense then to apply the same principles of building the pyramid towards an obelisk with the interior or in this case the inside of the obelisk being made out of ancient concrete and the outside out of granite? Basically, what I'm trying to say is if the Egyptians were focused on making the obelisk last, then wouldn't you build the obelisk with the inside hollowed out and once erect and in position, you fill the hollowed-out insides of the obelisk with the ancient concrete to give it more weight and stronger base making it tougher to tip over and at the same time, the exterior is protected by granite that will last for a millennia.
Similar to a lollipop where the outside is made of a tougher candy material and the inside is made up of softer candy material. Would be much easier than just constructing the obelisk purely out of granite and would require less manpower to erect the obelisk standing and in its location. This is assuming the ancient Egyptians definitely needed a ton of manpower to move these heavy ton obelisks into place but if they had some sort of tech that allowed them to move these obelisks into place easily regardless of weight then obviously there would be no point in constructing a lighter hollowed out granite obelisk because it would just add more time in the construction process of "hollowing out" the obelisk. That or the builders didn't care, they just cut the granite into the final obelisk shape as quick as possible and used pure brute power with the help of many slaves and animals like elephants to erect these heavy structures into their desired place.
@@CasanovaPugilist147 Why would you waste time and manpower hollowing out the interior of a stone?
I'm curious: have you ever held granite, limestone, and marble and compared the materials?
RE: Elephants -- as far as I know there were no elephants in Egypt, and the only beasts of burden were (much later) mules, then also camels and horses in the modern age (meaning last 500 years)
@@ThrashLawPatentsAndTMs hollowing the obelisk out for the purpose of it being lighter to erect upwards.
1:35 advertisement. Thats too long.
I wanna know why he’s wearing a jacket inside, where’s he going?
Absolute blessing
Might I recommend the SponsorBlock plugin (no affiliation) Automatically skips sponsored segments in videos
@@madrox4132 agreed! Sponsor block is a god send. If you're on android, I'd also recommend people check out UA-cam Vanced which has ad blocking and sponsor block built in as well as some other nice features.
@@madrox4132 or just skip it. Not that hard.
The fact that Zowie Hoohah says it isn't so is a major point in the theory's favor.
@@GryffieTube I'm just a rando that recognizes a fraud-pushing bullshit artist when I see one. Btw - if I'm such a nobody why did you feel you needed to write a long triggered paragraph about the status of your butthurt over what I wrote?
#LetsGoBrandon
I'm just happy to be able to hang a picture on my wall while keeping it level
It’s so easy to disprove the geo polymer theory. The presence of intact nummulites (fossils). They wouldn’t be present if the rock was crushed up and glued/melted back together.
As I read it some years ago now, the theory doesn't claim that all blocks were poured, just some. The theory also accounts for how precisely certain blocks are fissured or fractured, explaining that those features are more consistent with pouring problems such as errors in cooling speed or a broken cast than with stone moving accidents.
As my geology teacher used to say, "never underestimate what tens of thousands of people working together can do over decades."
Or as they said on Red Dwarf. "Massive, massive whips!"
It's easy to build a pyramid, as long as you get to let some of the workers die or be maimed for life.
@@IAmAlgolei you don't have to feed the ones that die...
@@IAmAlgolei I'm sure getting paid in beer probably helped too 😂
Modern scientists: how?
One guy with a shovel in the jungle: this is how.
He failed to mention simply burying the pyramids in sand to add the higher blocks, then removing the sand.
Um.... Lmao. Minecraft
@@loloppololp9304 Hahaha...not what I meant, but you've surely hit upon an even greater solution.
When you start talking about the pyramid of Khufu, it’s actually a picture of the Pyramid of Khafra.
Neither built any pyramid.
@@thomashaas2929 correct, its like saying Saddam Hussain built the Zigurat of Ur in 10000 years from now just because they found some bricks with his name
It seems to be common to show the wrong pyramid when speaking about the Great Pyramid.
I was obsessed with the great pyramid when I was younger. One interesting thing I've found that no one else seems to talk about is that the blocks are all comprised paramagnetic minerals. Meaning magnetic properties can be imbued through electromagnetic. I know it's far fetched but what led me down that rabbit hole was ed leedskalnin building coral castle saying he rediscovered the method that the ancient egyptians used to build with megalithic stones....using electro magnetics. His blocks are ALSO all paramagnetic. No one cares though. Just me and ed and he died.
You are actually onto something because remember the pyramids are speculated to be a type of power plant of sorts
I have posted a link 3 times to a paper from the journal of applied physics put forth by a team of russian scientist... youtube keeps deleting it. But they ran simulations regarding electromagnetic resonance of the great pyramid inner chambers. If you're interested it's findable on google. Essentially what was found is that the great pyramid can collect and contain electromagnetic power within it's chambers. 'basically the Pyramid scatters the electromagnetic waves and focuses them into the substrate region.'
I never heard that before and I guess into the rabbit hole I go. I have long thought that they used harmonics to basically disassemble the stone to sand move it into place and use harmonics to vitrify it again. Like the Hutchinson effect.
Yep and the fact that you see Tuning forks on the walls. Egyptians knew about vibrations and much more.
@@anomalyevolution40 Resonance science and in general the science of vibrations is literally the key to the future. What were they on to?
I never liked that hawas. The only good thing from that spring was him being arrested. Sadly, he is back at work and on every show about ancient Egypt again.
He’s such a huckster.
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish :
"The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi"
m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
Love to see you do a video on the internal Spiral Ramp theory... seems plausible with a great deal of evidence, including ground penetrating technologies... Ive actually believed it was built using both methods for a while now...
ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
It’s interesting how conspiracy theorists will often cite hostility from traditional archaeologists to their theories as confirmation of those theories’ validity and of an agenda to suppress them. Here, we have a non-conspiracy explanation for the construction of the pyramids, and yet, because it differs from the conventional explanation, archaeologists show the same strange hostility toward it.
Unfortunately, that's how much of acedemia works.
That's also why areas of study, such as quantum physics is making great strides... anyone ignorant enough to dismiss an idea that is most likely correct is too unintelligent to be involved to begin with.
Isn't the History Channel an authority on history, or at least they sell themselves that way? Why would they insist for many years to the general public that aliens built the pyramid? This isn't even just some small groups saying it, but a major television station is saying that!
Especially the Egyptology 'expert' Zahe Hawas.
Intellectual institutions and science as a whole is very competitive and ego driven. They are all trying to disprove each others work ( a result of rigorous experiments) and the debates between them (due to competitiveness) can get heated. That might be the “hostility” you are referencing.
@@JS-wp4gs The ancient Egyptians didn't have the resources to create ____ on the scale of - what? The pyramids? The Great Pyramid complex in the period of just a few decades? Phooey!
As for 'concrete' apparently you don't know how modern OR Roman concrete was made. Either that or you didn't pay attention to the recipe for Egyptian 'concrete' and notice it was different.
A final note to all of you who adore and laud Roman concrete as magically superior, you do know that ordinary modern concrete gets harder the longer it lasts right?
They first built the base, were like stuff that it's to hard. Let's just mix sand and see what happens (immediately everyone starts high fiving)
The concrete thing could have happened when they were pounding away at rocks with a mixture of sand from another quarry the two powders when wet made concrete. Maybe it rained and they found that all of the dust at the bottom of the stone they were carving had hardened.
@@ginsuma1402 Alchemy literally means of egypt. Khemia was one of the native names for egypt and we got the name from the arabs so there is an al before it.
Contrary to popular belief, chemistry is the direct descendent of alchemy. The scientific method was applied to it and the magic was thrown out, but all early chemistry comes directly from alchemists. They correctly identified many of the elements for example.
Basically what I'm getting at is Ancient Egypt probably had many educated people doing rudimentary chemistry. Maybe it was one of them spotting it in the field, being informed by a labourer or working it out purposefully in some ancient experiment.
@@Hashishin13 Nicely explained...As an Alchemist of the magick variety knowing it's history I agree with you 100%. They were well known for their Alchemical acuity,. It just never dawned on me the Alchemists probably played a big role in the construction of the pyramids.
The Egyptians didn’t build them they found them, then graffitied them.
Hmm... Good point
Recon your close to the mark there
@ wow u r so smart 👍👍
They were built by ancient Jews and conquered by the Egyptians
@gruntydatsun bwahahahaha
Fun and interesting video Simon! No surprise Zahi Hawass hates this theory, he hates most "new" ideas based in science. Hawass has delayed more discoveries than any "Pharaoh's curse" lol.
He's essentially employed by the US
Zahi Hawass IS the curse of the Pharaohs...😉
Ancient Romans had an underwater concrete which is said to have been superior to our own.
That's because they mixed ash as well as lime, gravel and sand.
The volcanic ash reacts with the chlorides in seawater; creating calcium structures which become stronger over time
And their normal concrete was superior to our current, common concrete.
@@Widestone001 That might actually not be true at all, for some reasons:
1 - We only have access to the concrete that survived to this day, meaning any roman concrete with inferior quality was already destroyed a long time ago, wich creates a huge bias torwards claiming roman concrete as superior;
2 - Concrete gets STRONGER with time, not the oposite, so if you give 2000 years to a block of concrete it will be more resistent than a block with a few years or decades;
3 - They didn't use steel on their concrete structures, wich is the main source of degradation of such strutures due to the oxidation of the steel.
There is also the fact that the concrete has a lot of qualities, not only its resistence, but its plasticity and cost must also be taken into account. So the definition of "superior" depends on its use.
All that said, the only way of knowing wich one of the two is superior to the other is recreating the method in wich it was made back in the day, and as far as I know we are not there just yet.
@@gamysty yet we replace concrete roads after 5 years and tear down buildings after 20
I enjoyed the Easter Island experiment a few years back, where scientists gave oral tradition the benefit of the doubt that the huge head statues were "walked" into place. Turns out, that was the solution.
1 minute and 30 seconds of ads right from the start? What the hell, man?
THIS NEEDS TO BE THE TOP COMMENT!
So the guy that came up with it still said his theory has lots of flaws. Great argument! Questions about mixing the stone cement/whatever mix it is. Does it contract and expand like all other mixes during temperature changes? How much would each block expand during a 100 degree day and contract during a 20 degree night F? Most cement pours are not level until you grind them down. I can't imagine keeping a poured mix level throughout and when it dries and contracts to not have any soft spots or shrunken spots. How did they mix it? Shovels, Sticks, Trees/wood? Did anyone do the math on how many they can mix and place, dry, and then add another piece? If you just kept pouring how would there be spaces between that are so tight you can't get paper through it? How do they hold the wood in place for such a large stone while it dries? Its elevated and slanted. Did wood boards and tree stumps hold them in perfect place? Did they reinforce the blocks with steel like we do today? No metal inside to hold it in place? Must have been one hell of a mixture.
I agree with your statements. As I was thinking of the exact same issues.
That and including that cement/concrete is actually porous. Which you alluded to. Concrete being porous erodes surprisingly quickly, in the realm of time passing, if water is frequently poured over it i.e. exposed to rain and the tiny pores that form also start to create cracks that water starts to funnel into the structure further weakening it and eventually will cause massive fissures that further break down the structure.
Go look at Any pictures of abandoned cities, the concrete buildings breakdown within 50 years, sometimes faster maybe last 100 years at best, before crumbling apart.
And they have reinforced steal throughout.
It is highly unlikely that a large cement/concrete structure would last anywhere near what they have.
Yes I know many were once covered/buried in sand and Egypt is a desert. But The oldest ancient Pyramids built would have been long eroded and crumbled away BEFORE the last ancient Pyramid would have been built.
Google various abandoned modern cities and look at how quickly buildings erode and read on exactly how concrete is poured and set and the erosion issues known by construction companies.
Finally, if they did hypothetical caste the stones out of cement/concrete, why not make them smaller, bigger than bricks but much smaller than the slabs used?! Wouldn't this make the whole entire process easier, especially to ensure that they have set properly and could be more easily moved to build the pyramids.
If you are going to respond to the idea that, well then why didn't they then cut the stone smaller, read about stone slab cutting and how and why they use various ratios of possible dimensions for cutting of various types of stone. This will explain why they cut as large as possible while insuring you can still produce a constant size.
You know, there are many other stone cut ancient buildings that use similar sized cut slabs than just the Egyptian Pyramids.
"As Ancient Concrete Theorists suggest..."
Always find Egyptologists get super, SUPER upset when someone finds anything that contradicts their 100 year old findings...
They don’t like thinking that anyone can figure out something that they couldn’t.
or they're being paid to keep all the sheep believing a lie.
Just like every religion, but go ahead and keep thinking your God is the right one....
Been listening to Graham Hancock recently? You realise that to get ahead in the field of science or history, you are actually motivated to overturn others theories and disprove them. If a theory isn't mainstream yet, its likely not got enough evidence to back it. It just hasn't met the standard of proof required to overturn established findings.
Egyptology is more like a religion than a science. When you look at all of the actual data, you see that the obvious truth has often no explanation in the "science" (read: story) of Egyptology. Hawas destroyed many ancient artifacts that didn't fit the "right" paradigm.
@@GusCraft460 That must be it.
That actually makes a lot of sense. My money is on concrete.
Except.
If you have a pourable medium that you can use to cast shapes, why choose separate block shapes that have to be moved into place at all? Just cast in place.
Not to forget the enormous amount of wood it would have taken to create that much quicklime, which kind of nerfs the whole "not enough wood in all of Egypt to move giant blocks" idea.
Then we need to consider, if they were pouring limestone "concrete" blocks, then why are there carved limestone blocks left over in abandoned quarries from that time? If they were pouring concrete to form blocks there would be no reason to spend time carving limestone into blocks.
Also why aren't there "concrete" structures all over Egypt? All those ancient artifacts, statues, monuments and an endless procession of tombs and temples, none of which have any hint of ancient concrete.
It seems a little absurd that such a useful tech would only have ever been used to build one structure complex and then disappear.
@Dongs Almost, they used actual limestone for the facing though as a particularly high quality quarried stone from the Tura Quarries rather than as a render. (which is part of the reason they are bare today. Later generations stole the limestone)
@Dongs I saw pieces of the Coliseum in nearby restaurant walls when in Rome.
French Architect Houdin construction method plus pouring.
Both combined is it.
Houdin's is 100% plausible and
Geoplymer makes much more sense. Removes so many obstacles.
Combine them and it works
@@Kizron_Kizronson
They probably didn’t have the infrastructure to make anything much bigger than single blocks? I’m imagining the stuff was probably carried by a small team of workers by hand, which would necessarily limit the size and shape of what could be poured.
i think the same could be said about machu picchu, as a stone mason i always thought that those stones werent stones at all but concrete that had been poured into sacks of some kind then stacked and the bag could be cut away after it dries. same technique can be done with whole bags of concrete to make garden walls
looks like shit tho
makes you wonder how much other structers back then that since. heen detroyed the the pynx
Earthen structures made from mud have been around for thousands of years and some still stand. It's so surprising Egyptologists would be so quick to disregard such a plausible theory but I guess it can be expected for "established" thinkers to balk at new ideas and be posthumously embarrassed.
*Magnificent PeoPLe & then there are the Trump Traitors!!!*
*GOOD **-vs-** DeMonic!!! PROOF of GOD **-vs-** the Mu TaTors!!!*
There are many problems with the hypothesis. The biggest is that most of those blocks are not regularly sized or shaped. Did they make a new mold for each block? And why are they not level? The theory would only make sense for the outer casing blocks, which were regularly cut, but that only accounts for a fraction of the total blocks.
If they used a hybrid of quarried limestone and poured limestone, they could have laid out the quarried stone across each vertical layer (one layer at a time) in a checkerboard pattern, and then filled the cubic holes with poured limestone.
The ancient Egyptians actually documented the names of the architects and officials involved. The didn't use slaves, they just gathered the population from all over the kingdom to work on the project and they were payed and fed their daily bread by the state. Archeologists are just arguing about how many ramps were needed. However this meant less people guarding the borders and less funds for projects and agriculture at the farthest parts of the kingdom which lead to a lot of unrest. The earliest pyramids where step shaped, it took king Sneferu two failed pyramid projects and a waste of funds, resources and man power before we got to the first iconic pyramids. His incomplete Meidum pyramid is key to understanding how all the others where built
I think you're missing a huge point of the debate. Meidum itself is evidence that its method of construction was NOT what was used in Khufu's time. The fact that the great pyramids were significantly larger, took only around two decades to build, and did not collapse like Meidum after many millennia, all show that the construction method had been significantly improved by then. The general plans for the pyramids were the same, yes, but Khufu's engineers obviously had done a much better job at constructing his pyramid. The architecture is the same, but the engineering is vastly different. The modern day analogy would be to compare the Willis (formerly Sears) Tower and the Burj Khalifa. They were both designed by the same firm and actually follow the same pattern. If you look at Willis you'll know how the Burj was built. However, to actually build the Burj engineers had to invent new construction methods and use lighter and stronger materials not available when the Willis was built. The construction method for the Willis simply couldn't scale for the Burj, and that's the key debate for the pyramids as well. The Willis is to the Burj what Meidum was to Giza. We know the basic plan of Giza from looking at Meidum, but we don't know specifically what Khufu's ancient engineers had to do to make the Giza last that whoever built Meidum apparently failed to do.
Great theory and I love the commentary here 😀 it's nice to hear soany people's thoughts on this
Ahh, another human who struggles to hit their M on their keyboard like myself 🤣. Everytime I say "so many" it ends up "soany"
It seems the simplest answer might be Occam's "Cement".
most of the times the simplest awnser is not the right awnser tho, Occam's razor is a falacy :)
@@feliperamos9191 It's not a fallacy, it's a method for making a tentative conclusion based on incomplete evidence. It was never understood to be a way to divine truth from anything, but rather a temporary understanding until more evidence arrives. It's good because, statistically, the simplest answer IS usually the right one.
@@feliperamos9191 That's not Occam's Razor. That's the mistaken version that most people on the internet use.
The real version basically says "The answer which requires the least number of assumptions is most likely to be the correct one."
@@jerotoro2021 look for the worldwide nub phenomenon in megalithic sites(including giza|). its evidence enough to at least a pushback civilization some many thousand years.
these are just words the universe does not care about any assumptions
Ah, archaeologists! Always dissing and trying to discredit each other.
That's how science works, it's wonderful and self correcting
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish :
"The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi"
m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
@@mattd6085 I do not think Egyptologists are "self correcting" they are the Luddites of Science
@@mattd6085 As much as I love the discipline of archeology, a lot of archeologists lack the proper scientific attitude. Many of them are chock full of biases and self-serving ambition. Mentioned in the video, Zawi Hawass (sp?) refuses site permits to any egyptologist who's theories don't agree with his.
@@fattiger6957 thats a shame, archeology should be just as disciplined as other areas of science
You left out Beer. The workers were paid in beer, all other details are irrelevant coz beer
Do you have a source? coz I read in a Ripley's book they got payed in garlic and there was so much wrong with that book
here ya go fam!
Beer Bread and Free Lodging at the compound near the Pyramid
Not going to lie i would and sometimes have worked for beer many times in my life.
Consider this: for most of human history beer was the safest way to get and be hydrated. Beer is made with boiled water, which goes a long way toward sterilizing it, and the formation of alcohol in the brew adds to that.
Go to your local river, collect a few gallons and use that at your only source of fluids - and don't bet on how long you will live. Modern river water is very polluted, and ancient rivers (or even only 200 years ago) were even worse. Even now that "cool, clear river water" can definitely kill you!
Who said it was a statue and not a person being dragged on his chair to go look at what he built!? since you can't find him only his chair!?
In the back of my mind is always the idea that one of these days, we'll uncover a long buried hieroglyph entitled, "How I Did It".
With emphasis on as English teachers say, "First person SINGULAR". :D
Search for 'The diary of Merer'
what do you think the sphinx is hiding under his paws? GPR has discover a room there but the Egyptian gov. will not let any one dig there for fear of ruining the monument
“It would have deforested all of Africa”
So ancient Egyptians caused climate change and took themselves out.
deforested all of Egypt, not Africa...misquoted
You are aware Africa is a huge continent clown. 🤡
@@ANDY-ie7nh He is aware, but also you should be aware that most of its land is a desert, the reason is deforestation.
@@stevenrais9360 I think they needed more trees than that, so they were deforesting the entire continent.
@@vkrgfan Yeah, that's not true at all.
I had the same idea years ago. After all, sandstone and limestone were loose grains of minerals that became solidified under heat or pressure along with natural mineral binders like iron or manganese.