Pyramid of Cheops - how it was built ! ?

#1
Of all the suggestions, and theories put forward, this one seems pretty plausible.
Ingenious, and very calculated planning by the Egyptians, I say.
It makes sense - or what do you think?


"Jean-Pierre Houdin, a French architect, revealed his revolutionary new theory as to how the Great Pyramid in Egypt was built. Dassault Systemes, a team of computer engineers, spent 2 years testing his 'internal ramp' theory with scientific 3D simulations."


Here is the earlier documentary - on site at the pyramid - verifying and collecting clues, and data, for the theory - and an early 3D-modelling of the theory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#Jean-Pierre_Houdin.27s_.22internal_ramp.22_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Houdin

http://www.3ds.com/passion-for-innovation/khufu-reborn/khufu-reborn/
 
#3
For those inclined to read, rather than watch, (as I know many here are ;) ), here is a PDF of; The “Inside-Out” construction theory of the Pyramid of Khufu "34 Clues in Support for the Theory"


Also, a recent interview with Jean-Pierre Houdin, by Sarah Korcz

Sarah: Do you have any news to share with us about whether or not you will be able to get the permits to do testing at the site of the Great Pyramid to prove your theory?

JPH: Since 2005 I have been working on securing a survey to find irrefutable evidence of my work. Unfortunately, I never got authorization from the former body responsible for management of the Egyptians Antiquities. That would be too long of a story to explain why…The past is the past.

Now, since January 2011, Egypt is going through a difficult process in order to re-emerge stronger than ever, but that takes time and energy. There was just no feasible way to get authorization during that tumultuous period. Now, as things are slowly getting better, I am, with my team, working on an application to work on the Plateau which should be ready in the coming months.

Sarah: What kind of testing would you do on the pyramid? Will it damage it? Will it prove for certain that the internal ramp theory is correct?

JPH: We will use 2 non-destructive techniques:

- Infrared thermography with the University of Laval (Quebec). This technique will allow us to see differences in the temperature on the faces of the pyramid, differences which would result from the presence, or not, of an internal ramp below the faces. With Dassault Systèmes, we have already done many simulations regarding the reactivity of the pyramid to this technique, and we know it is very well suited for our survey.

- Muons Radiography with the University of Tokyo (Japan); this complementary technique uses cosmic ray (Muons) to detect voids in the mass of a volume. This technique was developed to detect the chimney and the gas chamber inside a volcano and to analyze any development or movement of the magma, in order to anticipate any eruption. The voids inside the volume of the pyramid, like the internal ramp or the supposed antechambers, should be easily detected.

At last, the Faculty of Engineers of Cairo will also be involved in the survey. Students will be working alongside the other two teams and should manage the survey on a daily basis. These students will carry out this mission as part of earning their PhD.s.

So, as you can see, infrared thermography and muons radiography are two techniques which totally respect the pyramid and pose no potential for harm as no physical contact is necessary.

Sarah: Can you tell us anything new about what you are working on now?

JPH: While being held up with regard to the long-awaited survey on site, I didn’t waste my time while waiting. People always think that I have a theory about Khufu’s pyramid. That’s true, but that’s not the full story. I’ve studied all the pyramids built since Djoser’s Pyramid at Saqqara up to the first pyramids of the 5th Dynasty.

I could explain the construction processes for all of these, and by extension all the smooth pyramids built. With Dassault Systèmes, we have particularly worked on the Red Pyramid at Dashur. I have a full 3D model of this pyramid with its construction processes: inside-out for sure. And I also spent a lot of time explaining the origin of the Sphinx, which was carved for Khufu whilst the Great Pyramid was being built. Now, I would like to go farther and work on a 3D model of the Bent pyramid, as I did for the Red. One day, all the big smooth pyramids of the 4th Dynasty will be fully 3D modeled.

 
#6
No discussion of ancient stone-moving technology is complete without mentioning Wally Wallington, a retired carpenter who discovered a simple and ingenious way to transport multi-ton concrete blocks all by himself:


Here's his website:
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1

Doug
Yeah, that's a good one. I've seen him earlier, and he really know his stuff. They might very well have used some of that techniques building the large temples and raising the giant obelisks. I saw some documentary years ago were they showed how they could have raised the giant obelisks by using some sort of "cushion" with sand that gradually was removed to raise those obelisks. Cant remember exactly how it was done though. I'll see if I can find the video.

Here is another clip with Wally Wallington, I think.

Also found this clip that show some of the tools/instruments they might have used in Egypt;


..and the amazing precision they manage to accomplish with them.

 
#10
Yeah, that is the most likely way they did it. I believe they even had some old saying amongst the natives, on how the statues got to where they are, and they said; "The giant just rose up and "walked" down to the beach" ....and that was just what they did - they "walked".
 
#11
The first is an arbitrary construct, not to mention that there is more than enough proof that it doesn't hold. Most things "make sense" after one believes that they are so. The second because the difference in mindsets, worldviews and knowledge is so great. We like to think we know more now and in some areas we do, in others we know less. In most we simply know differently.
 
#12
The first is an arbitrary construct, not to mention that there is more than enough proof that it doesn't hold. Most things "make sense" after one believes that they are so. The second because the difference in mindsets, worldviews and knowledge is so great. We like to think we know more now and in some areas we do, in others we know less. In most we simply know differently.
Where is the proof that the way of construction Jean-Pierre Houdin propose doesn't hold? "Makes sense" are when someone propose a highly plausible way for how something work, and/or, are constructed, developed, or come to existence. It "makes sense" up, and until, someone comes up with something that absolutely, without a shadow of doubt whatsoever, prove the earlier proposition false.

The second claim you make is just ridiculous. They have gone out of their way to think and "use" only tools and equipment that was available to Egyptians at that time in history. If they acted as you say, they would have proposed the Egyptians used power-cranes, trucks and excavators to build it. They dont!!

Do you really have a case here, or do you just like to argue?
 
#13
Where is the proof that the way of construction Jean-Pierre Houdin propose doesn't hold? "
Wtf? You asked why I had a certain viewpoint, I explained and now you turn into something else that has nothing to do with that viewpoint? The viewpoint was about applying the concept of "makes sense" as an guideline for actuality. Period.


Do you really have a case here, or do you just like to argue?
Of course I have a case. That doesn't mean that your agreement with my view is madatory. But at least try and grasp what is being stated before you disagree. Not getting clear about what's being stated before blasting would IMO seem to be much more a clue that one "likes to argue."
 
#14
Wtf? You asked why I had a certain viewpoint, I explained and now you turn into something else that has nothing to do with that viewpoint? The viewpoint was about applying the concept of "makes sense" as an guideline for actuality. Period."
This is what you said; "not to mention that there is more than enough proof that it doesn't hold." You made a claim of proof, and I asked for it. You weaved it in in the sentence; "I also think that applying the parameters of what we know in attempts to explain what was done then is both bizarre and silly." Above I explained what I apply to; "make sense" as an guideline for actuality.

Of course I have a case. That doesn't mean that your agreement with my view is madatory. But at least try and grasp what is being stated before you disagree. Not getting clear about what's being stated before blasting would IMO seem to be much more a clue that one "likes to argue."
Read my above post again.
 
Top