Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:13 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,792
What's so amazing about the blocks fitting? They're rectangular. Rectangles fit. It's not like we're talking about jigsaw puzzle pieces, here.
  #52  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:51 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,042
What annoys me is that there are people today who cannot imagine our ancestors doing a good job at something. There are visible gaps between the structural stones, but no one could see them so so what. The casing stones, mostly gone now, were more accurately made, but gaps happen so they got filled with mortar and the whole surface was polished.
  #53  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:00 PM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banksiaman View Post
No, Davidovits' claims have been debunked by researchers who are looking at a broader spectrum of evidence than just chemical attributes.

Dipayan Jana has looked at the evidence in a very thorough and well-written study, which is also not behind a paywall for once.

The 'many articles' are essentially continual copy-paste iterations of D's basic claim.
It's been "debunked" by some and reinforced by others. Remember this was over 2 decades ago. Also keep in mind that Davidovits never claimed that all the blocks were cast in place. In fact, he openly pointed out the differences between cast v/s quarried blocks in his papers (a fact lost on Jana apparently).

You are right however in that it's far from a globally accepted hypothesis, and I shouldn't have spoken with such absolutism. That's what I get for posting in my free seconds at work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble
Wow. Amazing how they managed to get all those nummulites in there ...
Understand that concrete is a mixture of mortar and an aggregate material which is typically whatever natural rocks they can find to chuck into the mold. So yes it will actually be full of nummulites. And Davidovits did mention that the lack of knowledge of typical construction techniques among geologists seemed to one of the things helping to perpetuate counter-claims to his research. Take that as you will.

Last edited by GottaBeMeh; 01-10-2019 at 09:02 PM.
  #54  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:02 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,042
Nummulites vary from 13mm to over 50mm. How did they survive being crushed for aggregate?
  #55  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:08 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,042
Basically, we know where the stones came from, how they were mined and finished, and how they were brought to the site. How? The Egyptians told us and drew pictures of the process! They never mentioned concrete and the stones look nothing like concrete. A concrete hypothesis is nonsensical on the face, and I don't know why people keep supporting BS like that.
  #56  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:38 PM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
Nummulites vary from 13mm to over 50mm. How did they survive being crushed for aggregate?
Why do you assume they'd have to be crushed? In the case of something as large as those blocks, the aggregate would be similarly ... large. I remember pouring a solid concrete staircase with my dad when I was a kid. We tossed all manner of fill rocks into the form. Some were damn near bigger than me. And even pouring something as thin as 4" slab you'll have thumb-sized aggregate chunks or larger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone
Basically, we know where the stones came from, how they were mined and finished, and how they were brought to the site. How? The Egyptians told us and drew pictures of the process! They never mentioned concrete and the stones look nothing like concrete. A concrete hypothesis is nonsensical on the face, and I don't know why people keep supporting BS like that.
If it were as cut and dried as you're making it out to be, there wouldn't be so many people discussing it today. Nor would there be teams trying to replicate the construction procedure or examine the blocks under electron microscopes. There is plenty evidence to support Daviodovits claim despite Banksiaman's claim that it's just the same paper copied and pasted again and again. It's actually not.

this link...

https://www.geopolymer.org/archaeolo...the-evidences/

cites no less than 7 independent papers that came to similar conclusions as Davidovits. But to be clear, I don't wholeheartedly accept any of the hypotheses, and I tend to think the truth is probably a compromise somewhere in the middle of an overly complicated Venn diagram.

Also a quote from that link...

Quote:
Mr. XX.. does not specify why he thinks that intact fossil shells in the pyramid blocks prove that they are not concrete. If Mr. XX.. had even the most fundamental knowledge of the cast-stone theory, he would know that the fossil shell rubble of the Giza quarries provided the aggregates for the pyramid blocks.

Last edited by GottaBeMeh; 01-10-2019 at 11:43 PM.
  #57  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:15 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
The thing about aggregate is that you can tell it apart from the matrix. And forams (and other fossils) would most definitely have been crushed or otherwise truncated if quarried for aggregate. That's not what we see.

Unless you think the Egyptians carefully carved each aggregate block to avoid that, which is absurd.

Look, it is true that some sorts of concrete are a little hard to tell from some sorts of limestone on casual visual inspection. But the fossil-containing, sedimentary-structure-having limestone the pyramids are made of is not one of those. Especially when you can find identical limestone still in situ up the road.
  #58  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:16 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
If it were as cut and dried as you're making it out to be, there wouldn't be so many people discussing it today.
Do you give the same credence to Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists?
  #59  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:28 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The thing about aggregate is that you can tell it apart from the matrix. And forams (and other fossils) would most definitely have been crushed or otherwise truncated if quarried for aggregate. That's not what we see.
Why are you making the assumption that everything has to be finely pulverized? That would just be making extra work for no reason. "Aggregate" can be very large. Call it fill-rock if it makes you feel better. So yes, there could be large, natural stones amidst the concrete. That wouldn't be unusual at all.

Quote:
Unless you think the Egyptians carefully carved each aggregate block to avoid that, which is absurd.
At no point did I say anything of the sort.

Quote:
Look, it is true that some sorts of concrete are a little hard to tell from some sorts of limestone on casual visual inspection. But the fossil-containing, sedimentary-structure-having limestone the pyramids are made of is not one of those. Especially when you can find identical limestone still in situ up the road.
Again, I think the truth is in the middle somewhere. Davidovits himself said that some rocks were clearly quarried. People seem to keep omitting that. But he, and many after him (some as recent as 2012) have provided no shortage of compelling evidence that many of the blocks were indeed cast in place. Which in turn has the convenient aspect of answering a large part of the transportation riddle.
  #60  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:33 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Do you give the same credence to Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists?
I keep an open mind, and I give credence to those that are willing to research these things and publish their findings for the world. Such as the people involved in all the citations in the link I posted earlier. And I think you do them a huge discredit by lumping them in with people that reject the scientific process, and everything that the scientific community has accepted as fact and vetted a million times over. You understand that there are scientifically trained people that have studied these things their entire professional lives that seem to speak less confidently on them than you and dropzone. ...just saying

Last edited by GottaBeMeh; 01-11-2019 at 12:35 AM.
  #61  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:55 AM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
I keep an open mind, and I give credence to those that are willing to research these things and publish their findings for the world.
There's a difference between keeping an open mind and unscientific speculation.

This veers closer to the latter. Davidovitz' claims were self-admittedly made based on limited information, namely insufficient examination of pyramid materials outside of Egypt and limited access to the actual, real deal. Study of the actual pyramids shows the theory doesn't work very well.

There's a large difference between encouraging independent investigation and unquestioning credulity. We're all fine with people trying to research and publish new findings. That's entirely different from being credulously accepting of all such findings in the face of existing evidence.

It doesn't really matter if they studied these things their entire lives. There are conspiracy theorists, many with advanced degrees, who have spent decades trying to debunk the moon landings, the 9/11 attacks, the JFK assassination, etc. What does matter is if their findings and research match reality. In this case, they don't, at least to the extent the evidence shows.

Sure, there are cases where the scientific process has eventually overturned a previous consensus. Plate tectonics comes to mind here. But that one was built on decades of additional supporting evidence and was not accepted until the evidence was overwhelming, as should be the case with science. But the theory of concrete blocks to form the majority of the pyramids is not one of these. There's not a lot of supporting evidence, and it has not gotten any better with time. Actually, it's gotten worse. And that's how science works sometimes. Again, there's a difference between open minded investigation and unquestioning, unreasonable credulity.

Last edited by Great Antibob; 01-11-2019 at 12:56 AM.
  #62  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:04 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
You understand that there are scientifically trained people that have studied these things their entire professional lives that seem to speak less confidently on them than you and dropzone. ...just saying
And I will stake my Archaeology degree on my being right, that those stones are not manmade concrete, and that anybody who denies that either doesn't know what he's talking about or, like Davidovitz, is trolling to sell books.
  #63  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:09 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
There's a difference between keeping an open mind and unscientific speculation.

Sure, there are cases where the scientific process has eventually overturned a previous consensus. Plate tectonics comes to mind here. But that one was built on decades of additional supporting evidence and was not accepted until the evidence was overwhelming, as should be the case with science. But the theory of concrete blocks to form the majority of the pyramids is not one of these. There's not a lot of supporting evidence, and it has not gotten any better with time. Actually, it's gotten worse. And that's how science works sometimes. Again, there's a difference between open minded investigation and unquestioning, unreasonable credulity.
I am by nature incredibly skeptical. And my implication was one of consideration not necessarily acceptance. The point was, flat earthers and moon landings hoaxers aren't performing anything that remotely resembles proper research and/or the scientific process.

I am curious to know what recent studies you're looking at with regards to the concrete block hypothesis getting worse. Because there have been a number of very recent studies highlighting things like the lack of a sedimentary structure, magnetic alignment, etc. in support of it.
  #64  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:20 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
Why are you making the assumption that everything has to be finely pulverized?
I'm not. I'm talking about the margins of larger aggregate blocks. There would be clear break lines outlining such.
Quote:
At no point did I say anything of the sort.
It's the only inference to draw from what you have stated.

Quote:
I keep an open mind, and I give credence to those that are willing to research these things and publish their findings for the world.
You think Flat Earthers and YECs don't publish their "findings"?
Quote:
You understand that there are scientifically trained people that have studied these things their entire professional lives that seem to speak less confidently on them than you and dropzone. ...just saying
I'll keep my confidence in my own abilities as a geologist (with some archaeological training thrown in) to judge what is and isn't woo crap, thanks.
  #65  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:33 AM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
The point was, flat earthers and moon landings hoaxers aren't performing anything that remotely resembles proper research and/or the scientific process.
Well, they do publish their findings, at least to the same level you accept on the pyramids. That's not a good sign that your skepticism extends only to some things but not others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
Because there have been a number of very recent studies highlighting things like the lack of a sedimentary structure, magnetic alignment, etc. in support of it.
(bolding mine)

Davidovitz' "paleomagnetism"? There's a small (big) problem with it. The pyramids in question are aligned to true north/south, not magnetic north/south. Yes, there's a difference between true and magnetic north.

As mentioned above, the lack of a particular sedimentary structure is also not much evidence on its own. There's several different kinds of limestone stratigraphy. Lack one particular type is not evidence the stone is a concrete composite. And the stone in the pyramids is consistent with the stone found nearby.

That indicates the ancient Egyptians had a knowledge of astronomy, which we already know is true. It doesn't indicate anything about magnetism because the alignment is wrong for magnetic north. So, yes, that evidence is worse for the theory and indicates not skepticism but unquestioning credulity.

Last edited by Great Antibob; 01-11-2019 at 01:36 AM.
  #66  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:37 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
Because there have been a number of very recent studies highlighting things like the lack of a sedimentary structure
What utter bullshit is this? You can see lamination, ripple structures, cross-bedding and even in-situ trace fossils in pyramid blocks (see, for instance, the Folk & Campbell paper). Any geologist - fuck, anyone with a first-year geology credit - should be able to recognize that those are sedimentary features.

Last edited by MrDibble; 01-11-2019 at 01:37 AM.
  #67  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:38 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I'm not. I'm talking about the margins of larger aggregate blocks. There would be clear break lines outlining such.
Oh I see. You're saying that there is no evidence that anything at all was pulverized. Understood, however now both you and Antibob have made counter claims without citing any evidence. I've provided a number of data points that state what various parties have found under a microscope. You're telling me that they either didn't see what they think they did or misinterpreted their data. Also on a related note, one of the citations from that link does actually go into detail with regards to the lack of a sedimentary structure in the blocks which you mentioned earlier. I'm more than happy to read any source you might provide. But if you're simply going to dismiss everything with which you disagree with a digital hand wave then we can't go any farther.

Quote:
You think Flat Earthers and YECs don't publish their "findings"?
I'll keep my confidence in my own abilities as a geologist (with some archaeological training thrown in) to judge what is and isn't woo crap, thanks.
Oh I've no doubt they do, but as I said to Antibob the way they get to their conclusions bears no resemblance to science of any form. And from my perspective, I see well written, well cited, relatively recent, peer-reviewed papers from Davidovits et. al. Yet you're telling me that the community at large is lambasting them. And as a scientist myself, but not formally trained in archaeology or geology, I don't see that lambasting happening. Where is it? I will read whatever source you'd care to provide. Please educate me with something other than blanket dismissal.

Last edited by GottaBeMeh; 01-11-2019 at 01:38 AM.
  #68  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:51 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
Davidovitz' "paleomagnetism"? There's a small (big) problem with it. The pyramids in question are aligned to true north/south, not magnetic north/south. Yes, there's a difference between true and magnetic north.
I'm not sure what you're referencing. I'm not talking about Davidovits. There was a 2012 study that concluded that likely there's a mixture of natural and cast stones owing to the fact that the magnetic moment of a cast stone will align to the magnetic poles and quarried one will be random simply based on how it was cut and placed.

https://www.geopolymer.org/archaeolo...lymer-stone-2/

Quote:
As mentioned above, the lack of a particular sedimentary structure is also not much evidence on its own. There's several different kinds of limestone stratigraphy. Lack one particular type is not evidence the stone is a concrete composite. And the stone in the pyramids is consistent with the stone found nearby.
It was more that there simply was no sedimentary structure. Davidovits et. al. noted that they fossil remains were in disarray as if they'd been crushed and stirred around. But again, I'm more than happy to read any counter evidence you can provide.
  #69  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
Oh I see. You're saying that there is no evidence that anything at all was pulverized.
No, I'm saying there's no evidence for aggregate blocks, which would require 2 different matrices, and evidence of cross-boundary breaks in nummulites.
  #70  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:58 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
Davidovits et. al. noted that they fossil remains were in disarray as if they'd been crushed and stirred around.
Yes, by storm surges at deposition. Just like in the in situ limestone around them. Covered in my cite.

And there are plenty of other fossils and trace fossils that aren't like that.

You don't get trace fossil burrows in poured concrete, for one thing.

Last edited by MrDibble; 01-11-2019 at 02:01 AM.
  #71  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:12 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No, I'm saying there's no evidence for aggregate blocks, which would require 2 different matrices, and evidence of cross-boundary breaks in nummulites.
I think we are actually saying the same thing from 2 different directions. That there is no mortar and/or the destruction evident from creating said mortar in so far as a structure that would differentiate it from naturally formed aggregate components.

I read your link by the way. It does make some very good counter points. Two that I found most convincing were that the blocks were not found to be fused to the blocks below them the way one would expect if they were cast and the presence of l-shaped re-entrant blocks which simply wouldn't make sense to cast.

Still there seems to be evidence to the contrary however that suggests that some of the blocks were indeed cast. And again I'll remind you that Davidovits himself clearly stated that he believed pyramids to be a mixture of cast and quarried blocks.
  #72  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:22 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
I think we are actually saying the same thing from 2 different directions.
Nope
Quote:
That there is no mortar and/or the destruction evident from creating said mortar in so far as a structure that would differentiate it from naturally formed aggregate components.
Nope. I'm saying the only "aggregate blocks" in the pyramids that meet my definition are the blocks themselves
Quote:
I read your link by the way. It does make some very good counter points. Two that I found most convincing
...wait, so you didn't find that the sedimentary structures that are said not to exist, actually do exist, "convincing" enough?
Quote:
Still there seems to be evidence to the contrary however that suggests that some of the blocks were indeed cast.
Nope. All evidence has been sufficiently dealt with, and already was in 1992, as I cited, and then in 1993 with the Harrel and Penrod paper.
Quote:
And again I'll remind you that Davidovits himself clearly stated that he believed pyramids to be a mixture of cast and quarried blocks.
Yeah, me and William of Ockham would like to know why there's any need for cast stones then, if there are clearly quarried blocks throughout the structures.
  #73  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:23 AM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
I'm not sure what you're referencing. I'm not talking about Davidovits. There was a 2012 study that concluded that likely there's a mixture of natural and cast stones owing to the fact that the magnetic moment of a cast stone will align to the magnetic poles and quarried one will be random simply based on how it was cut and placed.
That doesn't make sense or prove much.

Why would the molds all be aligned the same way? You'd expect some to be rotated 90 degrees (or 180 or 270) depending on the pour, but that doesn't happen? How?

A quarried one wouldn't necessarily be random either. You're not going to cut adjacent rocks at random angles. Rocks placed next to each other are more likely to have been cut from the same face and transported in a similar fashion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
It was more that there simply was no sedimentary structure. Davidovits et. al. noted that they fossil remains were in disarray as if they'd been crushed and stirred around. But again, I'm more than happy to read any counter evidence you can provide.
Counter-evidence? The source quarry itself. The original source rock still exists. Has the same sedimentary structure (Eocone). Denying it exists is ... denying something that we know exists. I suppose it's possible that this concrete-like mix could have the same appearance and structure, but the simpler explanation is that the rock that looks like the same as the stuff in the quarry came from the quarry.

Some pictures here.
  #74  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:31 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Nope I'm saying the only "aggregate blocks" in the pyramids that meet my definition are the blocks themselves
*sigh* Yes, you're saying there's no evidence of a mortar material. Which is the same damn thing I said (translated).

Quote:
...wait, so you didn't find that the sedimentary structures that are said not to exist, actually do exist, "convincing" enough?
Again, you want to put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing. I simply picked 2 highlights gleaned from a speed reading of that paper.

Quote:
Yeah, me and William of Ockham would like to know why there's any need for cast stones then, if there are clearly quarried blocks throughout the structures.
Convenience possibly? No single paradigm works for everything. *shrugs*
  #75  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:36 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
That doesn't make sense or prove much.

Why would the molds all be aligned the same way? You'd expect some to be rotated 90 degrees (or 180 or 270) depending on the pour, but that doesn't happen? How?

A quarried one wouldn't necessarily be random either. You're not going to cut adjacent rocks at random angles. Rocks placed next to each other are more likely to have been cut from the same face and transported in a similar fashion..
I don't think you quite understand. Crushed and liquefied limestone is going to align its magnetic moment to the earth's poles. So if you cast something in place, it will magnetically align itself to (magnetic) north/south. And the only way that will change is if you pick that stone up and reorient it after it has solidified. And the same rules apply to naturally occurring limestone deposits. So it's an attempt to answer the question was this particular block liquid or solid when it was placed in this particular position?

Last edited by GottaBeMeh; 01-11-2019 at 02:38 AM.
  #76  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:44 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
I don't think you quite understand. Crushed and liquefied limestone is going to align its magnetic moment to the earth's poles. So if you cast something in place, it will magnetically align itself to (magnetic) north/south. And the only way that will change is if you pick that stone up and reorient it after it has solidified. And the same rules apply to naturally occurring limestone deposits. So it's an attempt to answer the question was this particular block liquid or solid when it was placed in this particular position?
But actually now that you made me type that out, I see the flaw with that study. Any realignment of the magnetic moment would only apply to the mortar.

Yeah, fuck that study. I'll get back in the quarried camp now.
  #77  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:54 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
*sigh* Yes, you're saying there's no evidence of a mortar material. Which is the same damn thing I said (translated).
You know what we geologists call a block of solid aggregate without any artificial "mortar material" around it? We call that a block of rock.
Quote:
Again, you want to put words in my mouth.
Pointing out the actual implications of what you say is not putting words in your mouth.
Quote:
I never said any such thing.
I didn't say you did.
Quote:
I simply picked 2 highlights gleaned from a speed reading of that paper.
So you speed-read, but missed the entire section dedicated to sedimentary structures. Or that most of the photos themselves were of those same sedimentary structures?
Quote:
Convenience possibly?
It's more "convenient" to quarry aggregate (and meticulously trim the fossils in them so as not to leave broken edges), mine and process (calcining lime etc - are you aware how fuel-intensive that process is, BTW?) the other concrete ingredients, and mix them to precisely match the substrate of the aggregate such that the two are indistinguishable, make forms for blocks (which formwork never leaves a trace) from the oh-so-abundant Egyptian lumber, and wait while the concrete cures - all so you can cast some blocks right next to the ones which are obviously quarried because they display all the features of natural rocks from the area?

Are you using some definition of the word "convenient" other than the one the rest of us know?
  #78  
Old 01-11-2019, 05:47 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,042
Never mind the shells; just think of the fuel cost. IRL, anybody who brought that up in a planning meeting would get sandals thrown at him.

William of Ockham was brought up because making blocks indistinguishable from natural blocks adds several layers of needless cost and complexity and is therefore silly. In my engineering years (I'm old and have been many things) I would challenge myself to design a part to be as complex and expensive as I could but I wouldn't bring those to production meetings.
  #79  
Old 01-11-2019, 06:03 AM
jackdavinci jackdavinci is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Port Jefferson Sta, NY
Posts: 7,984
Was the claim about the discovery of a record describing the use of manmade canals to float the blocks all the way to the work site a legit thing or a hoax?
  #80  
Old 01-11-2019, 07:31 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdavinci View Post
Was the claim about the discovery of a record describing the use of manmade canals to float the blocks all the way to the work site a legit thing or a hoax?
The Diary of Merer seems legit.
  #81  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:06 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
You're a very difficult person to communicate with, MrDibble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
You know what we geologists call a block of solid aggregate without any artificial "mortar material" around it? We call that a block of rock.
Yes, go back re-read what I said.

"You're saying that there is no evidence that anything at all was pulverized. Understood"

Thus no mortar, thus no aggregate material to be differentiated from such. We are actually saying the same thing despite your insistence otherwise.

Quote:
Pointing out the actual implications of what you say is not putting words in your mouth.
Except that's not even close to what you did. You said, "...wait, so you didn't find that the sedimentary structures that are said not to exist, actually do exist, "convincing" enough?" And you simply cannot make that inference from anything I said. I didn't have the time nor inclination to bulletize the entire article, so I picked 2 NEW points which had not been previously made to highlight as compelling evidence.

Quote:
So you speed-read, but missed the entire section dedicated to sedimentary structures.
Again, you assume much. I didn't miss it. They were simply points that you'd already made. Would it make you feel better if I said, "Hey wow, this article agrees with you on that point that you said it agreed with you on?" I mean this is the intellectual equivalent of me giving you a handjob, but OK, sure ... it does. Once again, I quickly culled 2 points from that article that had not previously been made in this thread. Is this a felony or misdemeanor in your universe?

Quote:
Are you using some definition of the word "convenient" other than the one the rest of us know?
Well I'd say think more like a contractor and less like a geologist. Maybe there's a odd shape or difficult placement to deal with. Or perhaps a pile of gravel and extra mortar (from the "grouting" hopefully you don't deny that mortar was indeed used in some fashion) that they just wanted to be rid of?

Regardless, you and Bob have provided enough data to sway me back into the quarried camp. It's odd that over the years, I've seen many publications (without really ever trying to find them) from the caster camp and rarely ever any counter claims from the quarry camp. So it's likely I'm a victim of the wrong people speaking the loudest.
  #82  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:28 AM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
So it's likely I'm a victim of the wrong people speaking the loudest.
Being one of the thousands of researchers supporting the boring, ol' party line won't get you guest shots on the History Channel. You need to set yourself apart from the herd.
  #83  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:31 AM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
It's odd that over the years, I've seen many publications (without really ever trying to find them) from the caster camp and rarely ever any counter claims from the quarry camp. So it's likely I'm a victim of the wrong people speaking the loudest.
How is that odd? You don't see a lot of serious publications countering a flat earth theory, either. You used to see them about 9/11 conspiracy theories but not anymore - why go to any additional effort for it? Or for JFK conspiracy theories or moon landing conspiracy theories or anti-Shakespeare conspiracy theories or anything else.

Past a certain point, additional research effort to counter them is itself counter-productive. Why waste the time and effort on people who, for the most part, are not amenable to evidence or reason?

It's a classic rhetorical technique, "Why can't we give full, published answers to all the critics?" As many professors would note, they would need entire staffs just to answer the cranks to their satisfaction (and it wouldn't work in most of those cases anyway), much less get on with their actual work. It's not worth using 200% of your time (much less not possible) to satisfy the 5% of people who will never accept the evidence.

Last edited by Great Antibob; 01-11-2019 at 10:31 AM.
  #84  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:32 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
You're a very difficult person to communicate with, MrDibble.
's funny, others seem to be able to get what I'm saying in this thread just fine.
Quote:
"You're saying that there is no evidence that anything at all was pulverized. Understood"
No, I'm not saying that. I am certain things were pulverized. Because that's what storm surges do. I'm disputing when the pulverization happened and what the agent of pulverization was.
Quote:
We are actually saying the same thing despite your insistence otherwise.
No, I'm pretty sure we're not. Because you keep using the word mortar, and I keep using the word matrix, and one of these is not like the other. The only time I use mortar is when I'm quoting you.
Quote:
And you simply cannot make that inference from anything I said
When you say " Two that I found most convincing", the clear implication is that other points were not as convincing. So of course I can make that inference.
Quote:
Again, you assume much. I didn't miss it.
If you didn't miss it, why didn't you remark on it...
Quote:
They were simply points that you'd already made.
...oh, that's why.


It doesn't work like that, mate. If you assert a point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
Because there have been a number of very recent studies highlighting things like the lack of a sedimentary structure
[/QUOTE]
And I posted a cite that absolutely tears that point to shreds, you do not then get away with "skimming" that cite and ignoring the refutation and only focusing on the other bits you like. Especially not when said refutation was previously pointed out to you. That's not how honest debate works.

Quote:
Would it make you feel better if I said, "Hey wow, this article agrees with you on that point that you said it agreed with you on?"
No, I'd like you to say "well, looks like I was wrong about 'lack of sedimentary structures'", rather than ignore that that argument was torn apart and continue the Gish Gallop, however temprarily.
Quote:
I mean this is the intellectual equivalent of me giving you a handjob
No, that's just honest debate - admitting when you said an obviously factually wrong thing.
Quote:
Is this a felony or misdemeanor in your universe?
It's just piss-poor debating, ignoring when your points are disproven.[/quote]
Well I'd say think more like a contractor and less like a geologist. Maybe there's a odd shape or difficult placement to deal with.[/quote]
Except the assertion by the Concretists is that perfectly ordinary blocks were made this way.
Quote:
hopefully you don't deny that mortar was indeed used in some fashion
On the main pyramid structure? Hell, yes, I deny it. There's no mortar between the main structural blocks, they're just piled up. That's how pyramids work.

The internal structures and casings were mortared, but it would be a neat trick to have rubble around from the casing before the gross structure was built. Magical, even.
  #85  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:42 PM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
's funny, others seem to be able to get what I'm saying in this thread just fine.
It's also funny that I'm also able to get what you're saying just fine. Which is that the microscopic pattern is not consistent with the (artificial) creation of mortar but only that of a naturally formed stone. And that the blocks are more or less homogeneous without any distinction between mortar and aggregate. But I honestly don't even know what windmill you're tilting at now.

Quote:
When you say " Two that I found most convincing", the clear implication is that other points were not as convincing. So of course I can make that inference.
Dibble, quench your fury for 2 minutes and try to understand that it was very obvious to me and anyone involved here that the article you linked supports your claim on the evidence of sedimentary structure. You said as much, and I simply didn't feel the need to rehash that. This is not embarrassment speaking. Trust me when I say I really don't have a dog in this fight. If the paper did not agree with your stance, then I would have mentioned this. But it did, so I didn't. Instead I opted to bring new pieces of data into the discussion that nobody had yet mentioned. Now you've interpreted this as "ignoring" data contrary to one of Davidovits' primary claims. However if you read everything in context, and accept that the new talking points I tried to pull in also do NOT support Davidovits and DO support the quarry camp then that assertion crumbles. Why would I bring in new data also contrary to the casting camp if my goal was to gloss over another piece of data contrary to the same camp? That just ... doesn't follow.

But somehow you've managed to twist that omission into what seems like a personal affront (speaking of piss-poor debating). It certainly wasn't intended that way. You seem to like to cherry-pick words, so I'll take this opportunity to point out that quite literally the first thing I said about the article you linked was that, "It does make some very good counter points". Among which was the evidence of sedimentary structure.

Quote:
Hell, yes, I deny it. There's no mortar between the main structural blocks, they're just piled up. That's how pyramids work.
Uhm, I can't tell if we're getting into another semantics battle here or what, but your own link states...

"In fact, many interblock spaces are filled with a red gypsum and sand mortar, easily seen on the Khufu"

also makes the point that...

"If the blocks had been poured in place (JD), why the need for mortar between them?"

I did not think the fact that some degree of grouting and/or gap-filling was performed with some mortar substance was up for debate?

Last edited by GottaBeMeh; 01-11-2019 at 12:47 PM.
  #86  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:46 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,321
Very simple.

The process of building the pyramids, based on the given 20-year timeline and number of blocks, implies installing about a block every 2 minutes each day.

Also - "pulverise" - in this day of power equipment, we forget how much energy is required to do simple construction tasks. Pulverise limestone? Make it into a type of concrete? How? What chemicals did they need to make this concrete? How much fuel?

Then what? It's a helluva lot easier to drag a big block than to pulverise it to fines, transport that gravel and sand to a new site, and then mix and pour it. in the days before front end loaders, it would all have to be loaded and unloaded by hand in buckets small enough for a man to lift. Remember, this was 1,000 years before the iron age, so the best they'd have would be copper shovels. rock and wood hammers for pulverizing...

What did they use for forms in the days before plywood and wood planers? Why do none of the blocks have an imprint of the wood grain of the molds?
Why would they pour a giant block and then move it? Why not pour in place? At the very least, that would limit the size of the mold - you'd only need 2 or 3 sides, not 4. But then, you couldn't remove the mold for a while, until the pour hardened. Why pour small blocks? Why don't the blocks show on the bottom that they'd been poured in place? If you're mixing enough for a block every 2 minutes, why not pour the entire level (or a significant chunk of it) in one go. Simplifies the forms, for sure. Why not pour complex shapes, instead of building complicated shapes out of simple blocks?

Even 1,000 years later they were using limestone block technology. A portion of the giant temple complex at Luxor has a few columns abandoned due to invasion still under construction - they were assembled from larger, ragged blocks that were then carved smooth in place to get their rounded pillar shape. (Incidentally, also has the remains of a mud ramp for hauling blocks to the top of one of the pylon walls. )

I think in the end Occam's Razor says it best - the simplest construction is the most likely. They quarried blocks about the limit of what they could transport, and then transported them.

Incidentally - it's easy to get the fine fit found in those blocks. Before block A goes up the ramp, line up B and make the surfaces between them fit. Then haul A up, repeat with B against C etc. L. Sprague de Camp mentions this in the book Ancient Engineers.

Last edited by md2000; 01-11-2019 at 01:46 PM.
  #87  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:19 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
Uhm, I can't tell if we're getting into another semantics battle here or what, but your own link states...

"In fact, many interblock spaces are filled with a red gypsum and sand mortar, easily seen on the Khufu"
Maybe quote the previous line, too, yes?
If an arguement is to be made that calcite cement formed in cracks in geopolymer stone after construction, then why did calcite not also form in the spaces between adjoining casing stone blocks? In fact, many interblock spaces are filled with a red gypsum and sand mortar, easily seen on the Khufu pyramid. If the blocks had been poured in place (JD), why the need for mortar between them?
Gosh, what was that I said earlier? Was it:
The internal structures and casings were mortared
? Why yes, I believe it was.

The rest of your post? Quite a lot of verbiage, not a lot of "I was wrong"

Last edited by MrDibble; 01-11-2019 at 04:23 PM.
  #88  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:40 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,792
Also, once you acknowledge that some blocks were quarried, why not all of them? Given the technology available to the builders, either quarried blocks were easier than concrete, or concrete was easier than quarried blocks. And whichever answer you come up with, why not do the whole pyramid that way? Why use a mix of both kinds?
  #89  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:53 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,288
I should think that if the pyramid was poured concrete, they would have used non-square forms, so that the pyramid would have had a smooth face right out of the box. Of course, in theory the blocks could have been quarried with a miter edge as well.
  #90  
Old 01-11-2019, 05:16 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Also, once you acknowledge that some blocks were quarried, why not all of them? Given the technology available to the builders, either quarried blocks were easier than concrete, or concrete was easier than quarried blocks. And whichever answer you come up with, why not do the whole pyramid that way? Why use a mix of both kinds?
Well, without getting into the mess above, the reason that the construction was mixed (basically, the great pyramids aren't solid stone, but stone with rubble fill, especially the interior) is because it's pretty difficult and unnecessary to construct the inside of a large mega-structure like this precisely. It would take forever. Instead, the interior blocks were rough cut and fill was used to, well, fill the spaces and smooth things out. It's really only the outer casing stones, especially the very outer casings that were cut and leveled really precisely...well, that and the inner granite chambers and relieving structures inside.

Plus, you had those cold geysers to allow the clean footed Egyptian workers to move large stones to the top without having to break a sweat...

(I'm just kidding, we won't get into that )
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #91  
Old 01-11-2019, 06:23 PM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Maybe quote the previous line, too, yes?

Gosh, what was that I said earlier? Was it:
The internal structures and casings were mortared
? Why yes, I believe it was.
Right, but your immediate instinct was to muddy the waters when I said, "hopefully you don't deny that mortar was indeed used in some fashion".

Your response was, "Hell, yes, I deny it. There's no mortar between the main structural blocks, they're just piled up."

Except I'd specified no conditions as to how that mortar was used. So then you agreed with me in a sidelong fashion with, "The internal structures and casings were mortared"

Quote:
The rest of your post? Quite a lot of verbiage, not a lot of "I was wrong"
You honestly have some personal issues that need to be worked out. I don't think I've ever seen someone get so twisted up over being agreed with. I'd still love to hear what you think my motivation was for me bringing data into the discussion contradictory to my original position since you're convinced that it was at that point that was I trying to "ignore" one point of a document which I'd already stated made many good points.
  #92  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:07 PM
joema joema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
...The Pyramids are so amazing...But could we build them today?...Could we chisel the blocks, move them and position them just so, like they are in these amazing structures?...
The ancient pyramids are load-bearing masonry construction. Obviously this could be done today much faster and with less labor. The question is using what methods and what are the goals? Lowest cost? Fastest completion? Smallest workforce?

It is further complicated since large-scale load-bearing masonry construction isn't done anymore. The largest such building is the 548-foot-high Philadelphia City Hall, constructed from 1871 to 1901: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_City_Hall

Therefore modern mechanization and automation has not been developed for large-scale masonry construction. There was simply no need since other building materials were more efficient. The Empire State Building has a limestone facade and was constructed in about one year. But it's ultimately a steel building.

If the goal was to build something like the Great Pyramid of Giza in the shortest construction time, lots of preliminary research would be done about methods and materials.

It seems possible that form-poured concrete blocks lifted by several telescopic construction cranes might be the fastest method. Each Giza pyramid block weighed about 2.5 tons. The Liebherr LTM 11200-9.1 can lift 1,200 tons 600 feet high:

https://cranenetworknews.com/wp-cont...e-1-300dpi.jpg

To expedite construction time it might be possible to assemble 10 or 20-block groups, have them bound together and positioned by the crane, then remove the binding. Maybe several of the cranes could be used simultaneously, say, one on each face of the pyramid.

It might be possible to use mechanized (maybe robotic) finishing of the poured concrete to achieve highly consistent smooth surfaces. That could allow precise fitting without any mortar.

If this hypothetical task ever happened, it would be thoroughly researched, all possible workflows analyzed, and computer modeled before work began.

There are about 600,000 blocks in the Giza pyramid. If four cranes were used simultaneously, each moving 10 blocks at a time, that's about 15,000 loads per crane. If each crane could only do one load per hour, that would take 1.7 years to build it.
  #93  
Old 01-12-2019, 05:00 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
I'd still love to hear what you think my motivation was
Apparently, to say anything except "I was wrong"
  #94  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:52 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Apparently, to say anything except "I was wrong"
If you were capable of reading without the haze of your egomania clouding everything up for you, you'd see I'd conceded that point and others several times. But no, I will not phrase my reply to your syntactical liking to satiate your epeen. As I said ...

Quote:
You honestly have some personal issues that need to be worked out.
  #95  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:06 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBeMeh View Post
you'd see I'd conceded that point
I see lots of post of you saying "yes, the article supports what you said" and "the article makes good points" but absolutely no post from you acknowledging, in any "syntactical" structure you care to use, that you were wrong. Throwing personal insults my way doesn't actually change that - this is General Questions, you posted something provably wrong, I supplied the proof it was wrong, you've subsequently ducked and weaved to avoid acknowledging that what you posted was wrong. You're still doing it.

Not that something I said was supported, but that what you said was proven wrong.

Last edited by MrDibble; 01-12-2019 at 10:06 AM.
  #96  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:17 AM
GottaBeMeh GottaBeMeh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I see lots of post of you saying "yes, the article supports what you said" and "the article makes good points" but absolutely no post from you acknowledging, in any "syntactical" structure you care to use, that you were wrong. Throwing personal insults my way doesn't actually change that - this is General Questions, you posted something provably wrong, I supplied the proof it was wrong, you've subsequently ducked and weaved to avoid acknowledging that what you posted was wrong. You're still doing it.

Not that something I said was supported, but that what you said was proven wrong.
Quote:
If you were capable of reading without the haze of your egomania clouding everything up for you, you'd see I'd conceded that point and others several times. But no, I will not phrase my reply to your syntactical liking to satiate your epeen.
12
  #97  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:42 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 24,359
#93
  #98  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:10 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,792
[Moderating]
Let's make sure to keep this from getting personal, everyone. If you have an issue with another poster's arguments, address the arguments. If you have an issue with another poster's motivations, take it to the BBQ Pit.
  #99  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:27 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Well, without getting into the mess above, the reason that the construction was mixed (basically, the great pyramids aren't solid stone, but stone with rubble fill, especially the interior) is because it's pretty difficult and unnecessary to construct the inside of a large mega-structure like this precisely. It would take forever. Instead, the interior blocks were rough cut and fill was used to, well, fill the spaces and smooth things out. It's really only the outer casing stones, especially the very outer casings that were cut and leveled really precisely...well, that and the inner granite chambers and relieving structures inside.

Plus, you had those cold geysers to allow the clean footed Egyptian workers to move large stones to the top without having to break a sweat...

(I'm just kidding, we won't get into that )
AFAIK the three large pyramids at Giza were blocks all the way through. There are several later pyramids (most notably the Black Pyramid) that were rubble-filled and guess what's there now? (Hint: just a mound of rubble). Similarly the very small pyramid of Teti(?) you can still go into the burial chambers, but they sit under a mound of rubble. But... those are much later pyramids from the decline of the old kingdom when they did things quick and cheap - and even then, no pours...

You can see on the smallest of the three main Giza pyramids that the interior is blocks.
Quote:
At the end of the twelfth century al-Malek al-Aziz Othman ben Yusuf, Saladin's son and heir, attempted to demolish the pyramids, starting with Menkaure's. The workmen whom Al-Aziz had recruited to demolish the pyramid stayed at their job for eight months, but found it almost as expensive to destroy as to build. They could only remove one or two stones each day. Some used wedges and levers to move the stones, while others used ropes to pull them down. When a stone fell, it would bury itself in the sand, requiring extraordinary efforts to free it. Wedges were used to split the stones into several pieces, and a cart was used to carry it to the foot of the escarpment, where it was left. Due to such conditions, they could only damage the pyramid by leaving a large vertical gash in its north face
Another story I heard is that Yusuf heard there was gold inside the pyramids and decided to go mining. Regardless, there is a very deep gash on one face and what do we see inside...?

...wait for it...




Blocks!

Last edited by md2000; 01-12-2019 at 01:28 PM.
  #100  
Old 01-12-2019, 01:45 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Another story I heard is that Yusuf heard there was gold inside the pyramids and decided to go mining. Regardless, there is a very deep gash on one face and what do we see inside...?

...wait for it...




Blocks!
I can't say I didn't expect the reveal to be...

...wait for it...



aliens!

I've been doing this too long.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017