Slashdot Mirror


Ancient Papyrus Finally Solves Egypt's 'Great Pyramid' Mystery (newsweek.com)

schwit1 was the first Slashdot reader to bring us the news. Newsweek reports: Archaeologists believe they have found the key to unlocking a mystery almost as old as the Great Pyramid itself: Who built the structure and how were they able to transport two-ton blocks of stone to the ancient wonder more than 4,500 years ago...? Experts had long established that the stones from the pyramid's chambers were transported from as far away as Luxor, more than 500 miles to the south of Giza, the location of the Great Pyramid, but had never agreed how they got there. However, the diary of an overseer, uncovered in the seaport of Wadi al-Jafr, appears to answer the age-old question, showing the ancient Egyptians harnessed the power of the Nile to transport the giant blocks of stone.

According to a new British documentary Egypt's Great Pyramid: The New Evidence, which aired on the U.K.'s Channel 4 on Sunday, the Great Pyramid, also known as the Pyramid of Khufu, was built using an intricate system of waterways which allowed thousands of workers to pull the massive stones, floated on boats, into place with ropes. Along with the papyrus diary of the overseer, known as Merer, the archaeologists uncovered a ceremonial boat and a system of waterworks. The ancient text described how Merer's team dug huge canals to channel the water of the Nile to the pyramid.

253 comments

  1. Great. Now prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a nice theory. Now they need to prove it's possible by actually using this method to excavate and move a stone as large as the largest one in the pyramids. Of course, they can't use any sort of modern technology to help them in any way.

    1. Re: Great. Now prove it. by sethmeisterg · · Score: 1

      No problem. All they need is a race of slave people to do the work.

    2. Re:Great. Now prove it. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Why cannot use any modern technology to prove its feasability?
      I mean we had a lot of people die during this process. You could prably measure the force of a thousand people to move a stone 1 meter. Then use heavy machinery to test the rest of the process.
      They don’t need to make a whole structure. Just each of the tricky parts as a proof of concept.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re: Great. Now prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can use the Stargate to get that

    4. Re:Great. Now prove it. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      You realize that by using basic physics it is possible to prove it with out doing it right? 1) can humans dig canals? Yes 2) lets calculate the required buoyancy of a barge for such a stone....check 3) can such a barge be built using the materials in the area? yes.... proved it can be done....have a nice day.

    5. Re:Great. Now prove it. by narcc · · Score: 1

      "It could possibly have been done this way" is not the same as "proved it can be done".

      As for your specifc "proof" by "basic physics" well... that's another matter entirely. I don't even know where to begin.

    6. Re:Great. Now prove it. by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Water locks and water channels are already proven technologies. Even ancient China had them.

      Once the water is level, it doesn't take much energy to pull a vessel on a channel. For instance in France, I've seen a horse pull a multi-ton vessel with no working motor without much effort at all.

      And once the vessel is inside the pyramid and assuming the pyramid acts like a giant water reservoir, then filling up that reservoir and raising the water level, and then pulling the vessel to the side where you need the blocks shouldn't take much energy either.

      The only tricky part might be the ancient water pumping mechanism and how efficient it was before the water would evaporate or seep away.

    7. Re: Great. Now prove it. by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks to Obama and Hillary there is an abundance of illiterate undocumented laborers ready to be exploited for the task!

      They're poor and desperate, so they're necessarily illiterate, and came here because of Hillary? You've already called them rapists and murderers, Mr. Trump, so you need not continue to insult and demonize them.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    8. Re:Great. Now prove it. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No...."Prove what was said in the papyrus can be done" was the challenge. All it takes is showing that it is physically possible.....you are asking a different question "Prove they did it". OK....The papyrus said so....that's all you get from archaeology.

    9. Re:Great. Now prove it. by narcc · · Score: 0

      "Prove what was said in the papyrus can be done" was the challenge [...] ..you are asking a different question "Prove they did it"

      I said, rather explicitly

      "It could possibly have been done this way" is not the same as "proved it can be done"

      The papyrus said so....that's all you get from archaeology.

      Yeah, I think I'll look elsewhere for insight in to archaeology. Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit, and I doubt you could have made it through half a semester at your local community college.

    10. Re: Great. Now prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drool on Rawlsian Trotsky bitch. No need to demonize the kfir ... just drive them into-the-ocean or butcher-them-out and feed bodies to pigs ... we got lotsa pigs in USA.

    11. Re:Great. Now prove it. by mikael · · Score: 1

      The hanging gardens of Babylon used Archimedes screws. Egyptians must have used water in order to keep the dust down and keep the workers hydrated as well as used them for canal boats.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    12. Re:Great. Now prove it. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit

      He's not exactly Lord God King Writing either.

      Perhaps he's ... using .. speech to text ...... and he talks ... like Sha..................t...n....er.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Great. Now prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a new theory. The pyramids were built during a time that the Nile delta basin was fertile and canals were built to move water from the Nile to any place they wanted. The Nile was a much larger water way in that era. A supporting theory is that the severe climate change that era was responsible for the rapid decline of the Egyptian civilization. During that time frame North Africa and Egypt was swallowed by deserts that made food production almost impossible. Maybe it was the Egyptians and North African's refusal to adopt any clean energy
      policies that caused the severe climate c.hange

    14. Re:Great. Now prove it. by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Water channels probably would work. However, there may be a bit of a problem. The Sphinx, pyramids, etc at Giza are built on top of a limestone plateau. It looks like the Giza Plateau is at least 30 meters (100feet) above the peak level of the Nile back in pre-Aswan Dam times. I would think that any system of engineering works capable of lifting boats, innumerable BIG rocks, and prodigious amounts of water up to the top of the plateau would have left some pretty obvious traces.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    15. Re: Great. Now prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? When even Egyptians didn't use slave to build them ?

    16. Re:Great. Now prove it. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      It is actually well known that they used a sand ramp circling around the pyramid, which had a center made of mud (here comes your water) and round logs.
      The workers were mostly hydrated with beer, well,during work time probably more with water or thinned down beer.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Great. Now prove it. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The Sphinx (face) is _carved_ out of a rock. It was a huge rock just sitting there and they cut away the outside rock to carve the figurine.
      The rest, like legs etc. are made from relatively small bricks.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:Great. Now prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there is pre-Awsan Dam Egypt, but if you want to talk about truly ancient, there is pre-sand Egypt.

      There are signs of water erosion at the base of the sphynx, which itself is likely far older than presently understood. The water erosion is tangible evidence. There is also other evidence. George Ivanovich Gurdjieff in his book, Meetings with remarkable Men documents stealthily copying an ancient map of "pre-sand Egypt." What he saw on the map compelled him to visit Egypt in search of ancient knowledge. What did he see on this "map of pre-sand Egypt?"

      The Sphinx!

    19. Re:Great. Now prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is actually well known that they used a sand ramp circling around the pyramid

      Assumed. There is no evidence to support that thesis. No drawings, no hieroglyphics, no contemporary accounts, no archeological evidence. Alternative claims were linear ramps leading to local stone sources (going downhill, not up, the original large hill is now a quarried plateau) and to the waterfront, or just mostly burying using the same techniques we do know they used with obelisks and large statues.

      I see lots of people making these hard claims on this page that have no backing. They are just hypothesis that have been repeatedly taught to people through school and media for decades.

    20. Re:Great. Now prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is actually well known that they used a sand ramp circling around the pyramid, which had a center made of mud (here comes your water) and round logs.
      The workers were mostly hydrated with beer, well,during work time probably more with water or thinned down beer.

      Beer back then didn't need to be thinned down, it was far weaker.

    21. Re:Great. Now prove it. by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      You mean like these traces?

      http://sentinelkennels.com/Res...

    22. Re:Great. Now prove it. by mikael · · Score: 1

      I read they worked from 7am to 11am and 1pm to 5pm. Sunrise and sunset at the equator are at 6am and 6pm, with a sharp change from night-time to day-time. Noon-time is too hot to work, so they would have lunch then. There were studies on the food consumption; beer and bread. They actually optimized these two processes by noticing that the lightly baked dough was also used to make the beer mash, and that the froth from the beer went back into the dough.

      http://www.aeraweb.org/lost-ci...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    23. Re:Great. Now prove it. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, the Pyramids are quite far away from the equator.
      But you are right in principle.
      Through the middle ages we had the same dough/yeast trading in Germany. Most german countries had laws that required bakeries to take/buy the yeast left overs from breweries. No idea how that actually worked out, as the amount of yeast a brewery is producing is enormous!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Great. Now prove it. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Dumb fuck...... "proved it can be done" is exactly what physics does. "Prove it was possibly something that was done" is what the fucking papyrus does. and literally....that is all you get from Archaeology.

    25. Re:Great. Now prove it. by narcc · · Score: 1

      Dude, you said something incredibly stupid. Then completely failed at reading.

      Let it go. You'll feel better. Dwelling on your failures just isn't healthy.

  2. Occam's Razor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes the simplest ways are the best ways.

  3. Ancient aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows the only way the pyramids could have been built was with the help of ancient aliens.

    1. Re:Ancient aliens by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      Everyone knows the only way the pyramids could have been built was with the help of ancient aliens.

      Why would the aliens necessarily be ancient? Maybe they were just alien kids playing with blocks, and now that they've grown up they've moved on to other worlds.

  4. Never any doubt on my part. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always knew they used the tractor beams on their spaceships.

  5. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's TRUE!! They got the Germanic peoples to come down, filled them up with beer (Egyptians had that!) and said, "if you think you're so superior, build a fucking pyramid with stone from waaaaay down there!"

    The Germanic peoples said, "Hold onto my beer."

    And built the pyramid.

    True story. It was a long lost piperous larcenous transcript that had told it all.

  6. But we can't dig a ditch for fiber to the home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mystery continues...

    1. Re: But we can't dig a ditch for fiber to the home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      What do Egyptians building water ways to move blocks have to do with fiber to the home and your claim of mass racism?

      Duuuuuuude, what are you smoking... and can I get some?

    2. Re:But we can't dig a ditch for fiber to the home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's afraid of Ajit Pai?

    3. Re: But we can't dig a ditch for fiber to the home by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Dude, you don't want what he's having. You really don't.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  7. Use the Nile? Whatever. by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 1

    Aliens did it man. Everyone knows that. Flying saucers, tractor beams, glowing power crystals, the works.

  8. waterways to the top? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or they got enough pace on the waterways to pass the end of the last canal?

  9. Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Re:Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, "water" pump
      Everyone knows the workers who built the things were paid with beer.
      https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
      It's also been a belief that they were used to store grain. Of course you'd have to be a puritan to not understand what that grain was used for during that time. The pyramids were kegs, bro. The Pharaos who built thing things were rock stars of their time. Those parties were legendary across the galaxy.

    2. Re:Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I read that link, and wow, it's some pseudoscientific claptrap. Here are a few choice quotes:

      "The shape has been shown to have dramatic energizing effects. An example being water does not freeze at -40 C. within a pyramid structure."

      What??

      Then we have lots of woo about the "energy of the pyramids": "The glyph is associated with the energy of the pyramids...". And lots of unsubstantiated assertions, like: "The granite coffer and many remnants around the Giza plateau had been machined with some type of triple axis mill, an advanced machine." Or "Many modern day physicists and engineers view the Great Pyramid as a machine."

      The construction of the Great Pyramids was impressive as all fuck, given when they did it. There's no need to inject a bunch of woo into it.

    3. Re: Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree the web page is very poorly presented, repulsive even, but ram pumps do exist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram so the central hypothesis is quite interesting, were the tunnels in the pyramid part of a huge ram pump?

    4. Re:Water pump theory by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Man, there are a lot of crazy people out there. They just can't see the simplest explanation: the rich Egyptians in charge liked to have extravagant tombs and had lots and lots of slaves and lots and lots of whips with which to build these tombs.

    5. Re:Water pump theory by tsa · · Score: 2

      Well, we know that this simple explanation is wrong. The workers were paid for their work and there were even strikes when there was a shortage of mascara, which was used to protect the workers' eyes from the harsh sunlight.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    6. Re:Water pump theory by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      An example being water does not freeze at -40 C. within a pyramid structure.

      That's actually a true statement. It doesn't freeze at -40 C because it's already frozen long before that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Water pump theory by ShamblerBishop · · Score: 1

      Even if that site is stuffed with woo, that's a fascinating idea - and even though it is almost certainly wrong (and any potential evidence for it likely not hard to discover) - the actual concept of and physical execution of it, is pretty cool.

    8. Re:Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came here to suggest that the canals were there for other purposes (like trading and irrigation), and just also used for pyramids. But the idea that its the other way around and pyramids help to source the water is great.

      From the article though: "Design: John Cadman Patent pending". I fear that patent might not be valid, with prior art existing from just slightly earlier (just a few millennia or so).

    9. Re:Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The construction of the Great Pyramids was impressive as all fuck, given when they did it. There's no need to inject a bunch of woo into it.

      And this leads to the answer of all questions. The pump with its pulsing and resonating was built as a giant dildo. Workers were enthusiastic to help with the construction as everyone got their fair share of using it. This then also explains why the Egypt civilization ceased to exist, because the pyramids were more fun than real intercourse, which equates to no more offsprings.

    10. Re:Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. The Great Pyramid was not used as a tomb until thousands of years after it was built, and for that particular use the building is poorly suited and was never decorated as such. It was apparently built to serve a different purpose than burial, but that original purpose is still unknown. The hydraulic ram pump theory is very compelling, and is completely consistent with legends passed down through the millennia by local wisdom keepers who claim it was a machine which produced a sound.

    11. Re:Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know you have no idea what you're talking about.

    12. Re:Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we know that this simple explanation is wrong. The workers were paid for their work and there were even strikes when there was a shortage of mascara, which was used to protect the workers' eyes from the harsh sunlight.

      Not really though...

    13. Re:Water pump theory by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Heh. I want to know the last time that part of Egypt hit -40 C. (Or -40 F, for that matter.)

    14. Re:Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. I want to know the last time that part of Egypt hit -40 C. (Or -40 F, for that matter.)

      I see what you did there.

    15. Re:Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. I want to know the last time that part of Egypt hit -40 C. (Or -40 F, for that matter.)

      They were the same day. ;)

  10. Thanks Science! by evilbessie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ramps, boats and good rope. I pretty much guessed that as a child but you know well done to those involved.

    1. Re:Thanks Science! by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's easy to suspect and hypothesize. It's quite another thing to prove it.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    2. Re:Thanks Science! by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      I know, I am being trite about it. It is interesting what they have found but it's not exactly new information.

    3. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope. it just talks about the (now missing) cover stones.

    4. Re:Thanks Science! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I've got an old mule and her name is Nenet
      Fifteen years on the Khufu Canal
      She's as good an old worker as you're gonna get
      Fifteen years on the Khufu Canal
      We've hauled some barges in our day
      Filled with giant blocks and hay
      And every inch of the way we know
      From Luxor to Khufu - Ho!

      Low bridge, everybody down
      Low bridge for we're coming to a town
      And you'll always know your neighbor
      And you'll always know your pal
      If you've ever navigated on the Khufu Canal

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad they haven't proven it then, its still just theory... The same theory everyone who does not believe in aliens have had for more than a hundred years.

    6. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Asterix and Cleopatra will not have to be redrawn, for the most parts.

    7. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't take millions in funding to find that out tho. so... doesn't count.

    8. Re:Thanks Science! by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Ramps, boats and good rope. I pretty much guessed that as a child but you know well done to those involved.

      No, not ramps.

      Water channels, pumps, water locks, boats, and a tiny amount of rope but not as much rope as you'd think.

      You'd need channels to get to the location of the pyramid, then you'd need a couple of water locks along the way to slowly get the vessels to the starting elevation of the pyramid.

      But think of the pyramid as being one giant reservoir, once a vessel gets inside, the water inside the pyramid acts like an elevator, the water level rises to the level needed. The only tricky part is completing the last part of the pyramid, the very top, the capstone, but that shouldn't be much of an issue because the capstone would still be able to use that elevator 95% of the way.

    9. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah we were taught that as a possible hypothesis as well, but evidence makes the difference.

    10. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, we like to look at our ancestors and assume they were stupid until proven not.

    11. Re:Thanks Science! by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Ramps, boats and good rope. I pretty much guessed that as a child but you know well done to those involved.

      Surely you didn't guess that on your own as a child, since we were taught exactly this as a possible theory when we were kids. It always made sense, now there is more evidence pertaining to how it worked.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    12. Re:Thanks Science! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      The proof is new. You know, the "new" part of "news".

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    13. Re:Thanks Science! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Dad, is that you? Howzit going up there?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    14. Re:Thanks Science! by evilbessie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am aware of this, but they got the stone from near a river and they built the pyramids near the same river. It's impressive that they did it at all I grant and the technical details are interesting. But I'd really like to know how they built Stonehenge with Welsh stone. No river there.

    15. Re:Thanks Science! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      fwiw, I decided to break an old /. tradition, and read TFA. And I'll agree that TFA is somewhat breathless about "we've wondered for centuries", or whatever. So I withdraw my snark at your snark. I apologize if changing my mind upon review seems un-american.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    16. Re:Thanks Science! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Ooo, good jab tovarishch.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    17. Re:Thanks Science! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You can guess a lot of things, especially as a child. That doesn't make it practical until you know a great many details. Especially when you take the context of now to make your guess about the past.

      I mean good rope sounds neat and all, but this was 4500 years ago. Incidentally almost 3000 years before Archimedes described the principles of flotation. But I'm sure your childhood guess would have just said the Pharaoh could look it up on Wikipedia too.

    18. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To those who have not predictive science, what man newly observes is newly true. Choke on that bitch.

    19. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K7q20VzwVs

    20. Re:Thanks Science! by mcswell · · Score: 0

      "the water inside the pyramid acts like an elevator, the water level rises to the level needed"

      How? Water doesn't rise by itself, except when it evaporates.

    21. Re:Thanks Science! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      He's implying that they directed water into a watertight interior column/area. That floated stones to the top.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    22. Re:Thanks Science! by Xest · · Score: 1

      It's not a given that they came from Wales for what it's worth, they could just as well have come from much closer.

      One likely site is only 20 miles north, and it's not as though they didn't have oxen back then. The biggest stones could be pulled by 4 oxen, and it's pretty flat around there as the terrain consists of plains, and where there are hills there are shallow paths up them, with few obstacles like dense forests or rocks. The terrain is hardly difficult to traverse.

      I think the stonehenge story is a bit overhyped. We seem to think that humans from back then weren't capable of basic tasks. I think the pyramids are a much bigger jump than stonehenge regardless of the river for transportation, because the pyramids required much greater architectural understanding to build, and they still had to move these giant stones onto boats and rafts capable of holding them. Once there were in position they still had to get them up and up and up. Stonehenge stones could literally have just been brute force dragged with only a handful of ox and you could similarly use ox to pull them upright into position - the pyramids took far more manpower, and far greater coordination of that manpower as well as a far greater skillset to get everything in position and built - even when built a lot of effort went into painting and carving images and hieroglyphics.

      Stonehenge is a much smaller and massively overhyped feat, especially when you consider it was built incrementally over thousands of years - plenty enough time for someone to say "Oh doesn't it look cool when the sun comes through the stones, maybe we should shift them a bit so that it comes through on the solstice!".

    23. Re:Thanks Science! by mcswell · · Score: 1

      I understand that he's talking about channeling water, but what causes the water level to rise up to (I presume) nearly the top of the pyramid? The pyramids are clearly higher than the surrounding ground, so you can't just let the water flow in; you have to pump it *up*. (In principle, you could collect rain. Except it doesn't rain much there...) I doubt that they had any pumps, certainly not pumps sufficient to pump millions of liters of water more than a hundred meters up.

    24. Re:Thanks Science! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually they used ramps (made from sand)

      A chain of water locks going a few hundred meters high, is extremely impractical, on such a tight place.
      And if they tried that, we likely knew it from the remainings.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:Thanks Science! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Not sure.

      Say I offered you a million dollars to solve it? Could you?

      Here's some ideas.

      slaves carrying/passing up water.
      archmedian screwpumps (being cast in bronze by 900bc were an egyptian thing.

      It seems to me if they built these big canals then they might show up on satellite maps now that we know what to look for.

      That'd be one way to prove the theory.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    26. Re:Thanks Science! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      You'd need channels to get to the location of the pyramid, then you'd need a couple of water locks [h-cdn.co] along the way to slowly get the vessels to the starting elevation of the pyramid.

      Locks require a regular supply of water to work. The photo you link to is of the Caen Hill flight, but if you look at the map, you'll see the extensive storage ponds needed for the water to operate this flight. That's in relatively moist Britain ; the engineering needed to operate a significant set of locks in Egypt would be hard to miss. The nearest land high enough to host reservoirs that would get even half-way up the Great Pyramid is over 10km away to the W

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    27. Re:Thanks Science! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      You're conflating two aspects of Stonehenge. There are two types (and styles) of stones used in the Stonehenge monument : the large, rectangular stones used in the "two up and one across" structures (trilithons) are made from "sarsen" (a calcareous sandstone remnant from various parts of the "Downs" on which Stonehenge is built. The likely source for these slabs - up to about 40 tons - is considered the Marlborough Downs, 20-odd miles to the north of the site. However there are 56 smaller stones in the site, typically 1 to 2 m tall and a half-metre or so in diameter (typically one tonne) which are described as "bluestones". These are rhyolitic tuffs and have been traced on very solid petrological grounds (also in the last few years, radiometric dating) to a quarry in Pembrokeshire, Wales.

      The big difference between Stonehenge and the Pyramids is that the Pyramids had a larger workforce available in substantial chunks through the year, while the fields were flooded by the Nilotic Inundation. Though the recent excavations at Durrington Walls suggests a large seasonal occupation there, which may have been associated with the construction programme.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    28. Re:Thanks Science! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Incidentally almost 3000 years before Archimedes described the principles of flotation.

      So, nobody built boats before about 500CE? That would explain how the Romans didn't besiege Syracuse in 212BCE, killing Archimedes in the process - they didn't have any boats to get to the island of Sicily.

      Our ancestors knew very how to do a lot of things that they didn't have a comprehensive understanding of.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    29. Re: Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor oxen had a hard life. After their usefulness was done they were sacrificed by the paegons on the altars that they helped build.

    30. Re: Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'You know, the "new" part of "news".'

      Yes, that would be north, east, and west. What's your point??

    31. Re:Thanks Science! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Put the beer keg at the bottom & the toilet at the top. Then add frat boys.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re:Thanks Science! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So, nobody built boats before about 500CE?

      Based on what? Evidence? That's kind of my point. 500CE, 2500BC, 10000BC, first bipeds walking on land... we have nothing to go on the capabilities of people other than evidence that they were able to do something.

      After the principles of flotation were published the requirement for evidence was greatly reduced when discussing people making floating things. A child's mind would extrapolate: We know how to send ships to the other side of the world carrying 100000T cargo, so they must have used ships!

      An adult's mind, and an archaeologist's mind says: the exact principles of flotation were only described 2000 years after this. We know they used boats at the time, but lets look for evidence that they were both capable and actually did built a boat that was able to haul this specific cargo. We're talking about blocks where people are debating about how to physically move them in the first place, it's not a foregone conclusion that they not only moved them with ease but were also able to load and unload them on ships.

    33. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right, What you thought as a child is good enough. Just never put it to the test, you might learn something. Such as the possibility of being wrong with your guesses. Or having been lied to by adults.

      Hey, you sure were one clever boy! Whatcha doin on /.?

    34. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of what labor-saving method was used, I've never been able to understand how anyone with half a brain and talk as if moving two-ton blocks is some inconceivable feat without modern technology. Not that it's a practical way to do it, but it's not like twenty workers couldn't just hoist a two ton block off the ground by grabbing around the sides. Beyond that, there are dozens of ways to make it easier. It's not as if it's really some staggering accomplishment on a block by block basis.

    35. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd need channels to get to the location of the pyramid, then you'd need a couple of water locks [h-cdn.co] along the way to slowly get the vessels to the starting elevation of the pyramid.

      Or you could just start your canals upstream of the pyramid sloping downhill.

    36. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure.

      Say I offered you a million dollars to solve it? Could you?

      Here's some ideas.

      slaves carrying/passing up water.
      archmedian screwpumps (being cast in bronze by 900bc were an egyptian thing.

      It seems to me if they built these big canals then they might show up on satellite maps now that we know what to look for.

      That'd be one way to prove the theory.

      If you offered me a million dollars, of course I could. I could solve it in lots of ways not requiring hydraulics. I mean, seriously. Slaves carrying up water? Archimedian screws? Sure, when you actually need to move water for its own sake. When you need to move something else? It's a lot more efficient to just lift the thing you actually want to lift. Consider a chain of slaves (or paid workers, whatever) carrying water up the side of a pyramid. How many would you need? Now, what if you just put some poles under the stone and had a subset of those workers just lift the poles and carry the block up? Or pull it with ropes up the side? Heck, operate a series of cranes powered by capstans?

    37. Re:Thanks Science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experimental archeologists have been hurdling with stones on wood as one possible solution. There are some watery areas as well to cross, such as the Bristol Channel. Of course, some people say that the ice age brought those stone there originally.

  11. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Nothing can match the power of Trump voter who thinks NFL players taking a knee in protest (i.e. exercising their Constitutional Right of Free Speech.) during the National Anthem is disrespectful of the flag and our military. But somehow they weren't angry when Twitler his own self failed on numerous occasions to place his big right hand over his heart during the same and had to be prodded by Melania to show respect. Or when Twitler disrepected the Gold Star parents of a decorated war hero. Or disrespected John McCain, a Silver Star medal recipient and POW. But I digress.

    Clearly all those Trump voters travelled back in time and built the pyramids in ten minutes, fueled by their insipid hatred of Rich Blacks exercising their Rights.

    Go ahead Russian puppets, boycott NFL games. Vladimir Putin salutes you.

  12. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ancient egypts were white...

  13. So... by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    Who is looking for the canals?

  14. Re:Fake News by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    i.e. exercising their Constitutional Right of Free Speech.

    Nobody's saying they should go to jail or have the government stop them. But free speech does not mean there can be no consequences. If the NFL wanted to fire them they could, within the bounds of whatever their contract is. They also can choose to not do anything or even support it. But that has nothing to do with their "Constitutional Right of Free Speech".

    The people saying it's disrespectful are also exercising their rights. For what it's worth, I think they don't understand, or choose not to understand, what the players' protest is actually about. And for what its worth I think Trump is a dangerous lunatic who should not be in charge of anything. But defending the players by saying "it's their right" is missing the point.

  15. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually there is DNA evidence that the original founders of Egypt were Indo-European.

  16. Junky video. Be warned by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    That link takes you to a site that auto plays a slide of text, slowly with even more weird music.

    Foget Net neuatrality? These sites will kill internet as we know it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  17. Bullcrap! It was Aliens! Ancient Aliens! by williamyf · · Score: 1, Troll

    Those "archeologists" were not present there.

    That "surveyer" was only part of a conspiracy to surpress the truth about our ancient overlords.

    No ammount of "evidence" will change that.

    I still can not conceive how that could be done by mere humans, therefore: Aliens!

    Anything and everything else is all fake news.

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:Bullcrap! It was Aliens! Ancient Aliens! by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 0

      Is the "surveyor" connected somehow to the Central Scrutinizer?

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:Bullcrap! It was Aliens! Ancient Aliens! by sysrammer · · Score: 0

      God told you to say that.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  18. Oh please by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Now they need to prove it's possible by actually using this method to excavate and move a stone as large as the largest one in the pyramids.

    No need to get fancy about such ideas; levers, rollers, ramps, chisels, hammers, muscle. It's not only possible, it's obviously possible. They were metalworkers.

    And that's not to say they didn't apply something, or several somethings, more clever to the problem, either - it's just that excavating such blocks can be done with those things and nothing more.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Oh please by gtall · · Score: 2

      Damn, so no aliens, huh? The Greek guy with the electric hair will be disappointed.

    2. Re:Oh please by BinBoy · · Score: 1

      Damn, so no aliens, huh?

      Who do you think built the canals?

  19. Comments Section by jillybeann · · Score: 2

    The comments section on this site has really gone downhill. Where did all of the intellectually brilliant and funny comments go? Could it be a new age of younger, less smart people due to frequent use of cell phones and Facebook? Has the NSA infested the community? Mass mind control?

    1. Re:Comments Section by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the people who used to post interesting comments have given up commenting. Doesn't mean they don't read, just maybe they don't bother writing anymore.

    2. Re:Comments Section by IHateFatCashews · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The trolls ran them off. They're more interested in pissing on people than contributing to the discussion.

    3. Re:Comments Section by mrbester · · Score: 2

      I presume you mean responses from those with a low UID. This very question has been asked in the past and one of the reasons was similar to what IHateFatCashews wrote. Even before I decided to finally create an account and ending up with a pathetic late-to-the-party 6 digit UID, there'd been a mass exodus. It happens with an almost predictable frequency, like solar minima.

      Not all have travelled beyond the Rim. Many remain.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    4. Re:Comments Section by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Comment longer than 140^H^H^H280 characters. TL;DR

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    5. Re:Comments Section by sysrammer · · Score: 0

      "Has the NSA infested the community?"
      NSA motto: "In God we trust. All others we monitor"
      They have no interest in taking part in the conversation.
      So we have to think: who else might be interested in sowing dissension?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    6. Re:Comments Section by dow · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're just waiting, watching for a time when the universe might need them again.

    7. Re:Comments Section by Mr+Thinly+Sliced · · Score: 2

      As long as that universe has good personal time breaks and isn't too uphill.

    8. Re: Comments Section by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean given the general content, it's either some weird astroturfing or it's a bunch of old dumb neocons.

    9. Re:Comments Section by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An alternative theory could be that 15 years ago you were 15 years younger and had a lower bar to what was intellectually brilliant and funny. And let's face it, just about every joke that could told on every subject has already been told a hundred times before, and you've read it all before. Welcome to getting old.

    10. Re:Comments Section by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C.D. Reimer is renowed Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."

      But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!

      Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
      Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
      All the king's horses
      And all the king's men
      Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
      Together again.

      Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Creimy's real pictures:
      Before the sex change:
      https://ibb.co/cc7Ddw
      After the sex change:
      https://ibb.co/gVad65

      Creimy's chair, he talks about it all the time on slashdot:
      http://www.keynamics.com/image...

      Creimy's head, while his supervisor was talking to him, not with him, since it is impossible to do with Creimy:
      https://school.discoveryeducat...

      Creimy acting in educational resource document, he actually confirmed himself on Slashdot that he was handled by Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education! He is really a king Dumpty!:
      http://www.sccoe.org/depts/stu...

    11. Re:Comments Section by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to creimer, who is more interested in off-topic irrelevant stories, boring asides, and unbelievable bullshit?

    12. Re: Comments Section by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOLOLOL yea. The funniest shit I've ever seen. Keep it up. Those before and after pictures tho LUL. Dude looks like he's wearing a girdle.

  20. Alternate theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the correct answer is slaves. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a whip.

    1. Re:Alternate theory by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Informative

      The workers were not slaves. There are payroll records to prove it.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Alternate theory by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      You are right, but some were. There are other historical records.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    3. Re: Alternate theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the "employees" who were buried with the pharaoh. Lol

    4. Re:Alternate theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll add: most slaves up until sugar were not black, but basically *anyone you could grab*.

    5. Re:Alternate theory by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yes and no.
      Strictly speaking ancient Egypt had no slaves.
      On the Pyramids only free men worked.
      In the quarries however also convicted criminals.
      The only slaves usually where prisoners of war, who worked everywhere but not on pyramids, and got released into freedom when they spoke enough Egyptian to settle down or to go home.
      There are "ceremonial slaves" like the Eunuchs in old China.

      The only other way to fall into slavery was huge debts, which could made you a slave to your creditor.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Alternate theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The workers were not slaves. There are payroll records to prove it.

      Yes and my mind is permanently blown that such records from long before the age of information still exist in the 21st century AD. How long will your internet browsing history, which is now being collected bythe NSA and other intelligence services, be preserved?

    7. Re:Alternate theory by houghi · · Score: 1

      And they where better paid than workers now. (OK, not that difficult to do)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  21. An old horror movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An old horror movie showed how the stone blocks were not stacked at first; that they were raised to allow human traffic to walk in between and access the pyramid's hidden chambers, until the 'slaves' arrived at the Pharaoh's final resting place. They pulled a switch that released these huge stone blocks that went through each floor and pulverized the supports and scaffolding while unleashing torrents of sand in the process, drowning and suffocating all the slaves, entombing them with their beloved ruler, and lowering the huge stone blocks until they were neatly stacked together, packed tightly even.

  22. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But free speech does not mean there can be no consequences.

    This isn't "shouting fire" in a crowded theater. The NFL will deal with them as it sees fit. We don't need Russian trolls inciting divisiveness. Go fire up some ire in Russia and kick Putin out if you've got so much time on your hands.

    But defending the players by saying "it's their right" is missing the point.

    Said the Russian troll trying to incite more divisiveness.

  23. Not really solved. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    They think the stones were floated on logs and custom built canals brought the stones from quarry site to the construction site. It is not a mystery and people were already guessing they must have done it. Nile boats are very prominent in all Egypt art work.

    The real mystery is how they lifted these blocks up the structure. The descendant of the caste of temple builders in South India says they build a helical wall that spirals around the structure. The wall is filled with sand. Stones are rolled up the helical ramp and moved into place. Once the structure is complete, the scaffolding wall is broken, sand spills out, and the structure is reveled. How they build the Big Temple at Thanjavur

    It is possible the Egyptians also used inclined planes, possibly even the same helical inclined plane. BTW the helical inclined plane is used day in day out by us, we call them the threads in nuts and bolts.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Not really solved. by narcc · · Score: 1

      BTW the helical inclined plane is used day in day out by us, we call them the threads in nuts and bolts.

      I'm so glad you were paying attention in 3rd grade when they taught us about simple machines. Good for you.

    2. Re:Not really solved. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      They could be raised up a water tight shaft made of stone. So entry at the bottom of the shaft, securely water tightly block the entry to the shaft and then fill the shaft full of water raising the stone on it's floating platform. You are still having to shift the same mass up to the top by hand but now you are doing it bit by bit carting water up there. If you have more than one shaft, you can regain some efficiency, by using the full shaft to half, fill other shafts. You could also displace water with sand and let the sand flow out afterwards.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  24. The pyramids were poured like concrete by blindseer · · Score: 0

    I thought it was well established a that the stones were poured in place using forms like concrete. A lot like how the Hoover Dam was constructed. The theory was supported with finding hairs sticking from the stones, as they likely fell from worker's heads into the slurry, and bubbles in the stones which are indicative of a pouring rather than a natural sedimentation.

    These theories of having space aliens build them, or some lost advanced technology, were all very compelling when I was younger. I remember checking out books from the library on aliens building this and that, aliens visiting ancient civilizations and this being documented in cave paintings and such, and of "cryptozoologists" writing of animals that exist in out of focus photographs and wild imaginations. I've outgrown that. I just find it fascinating these theories of fantastic historical events persist as much as they do in this age of so many people having high definition cameras in their pockets and ready access to so much technical knowledge. I'm quite certain such fantasy will not go away, it's part of what makes us human.

    Much more likely is that these pyramids were made with a limestone slurry poured into wooden forms built in place. The tightly fitted faces of the stones weren't from expertly carved blocks but from the cured blocks not adhering to the newly poured blocks. This would be difficult to prove without destructive evaluation of the blocks, which I can understand would be problematic logistically, politically, and for a lot of other reasons.

    So, someone finds something that is supposedly from a person that worked on the pyramids. We've seen fakes before. We've misinterpreted ancient texts before. We've seen ancient fakes get misinterpreted before. This "mystery" has gone on for a very long time and nothing is going to rid us completely of it.

    I just ponder on if someday in the future someone will find our modern construction and wonder how such a "primitive" culture could build something like the Hoover Dam.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:The pyramids were poured like concrete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were poured, they wouldn't have chiseled tool marks on them. Duh.

    2. Re:The pyramids were poured like concrete by blindseer · · Score: 2

      If they were poured, they wouldn't have chiseled tool marks on them. Duh.

      Have you ever poured concrete? I have. Sometimes the forms move on you, things break, and now you have a very hard material that has gone beyond the bounds of where you want it to be and you have to do something about it. What do you do? You get out some chisels and hammers. Today we'd use power saws, jackhammers, and so forth but the problem and solution is much the same.

      Again, as I recall the explanation on how the pyramids were built, is that it was a combination of quarried and poured blocks. Some of the stone was cut from a mine and moved to the site as a whole. The rest of the blocks were poured on site into forms. The material for the poured cement like material was likely from busted up pieces from the same mine that they got the whole stones. That means most any chemical, radiological, and such testing might not show which was poured and which was not. What would prove this theory is destructive testing, and that's not going to happen willingly. For that to happen we'd need something like an earthquake or meteor shower to hit the site and then someone look at the busted up pieces.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:The pyramids were poured like concrete by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That means most any chemical, radiological, and such testing might not show which was poured and which was not.
      You don't need an analysis to see if a stone us poured.
      You see that with blank eye.

      It is extremely unlikely that the Egyptians used poured blocks. If they had: we had literature about it. Like we have about basically everything covering their lives.
      And we probably had ruins of stuff that *obviously* used pouring techniques.

      If you can make poured blocks, it would make much more sense to simply use pouring to make big structures instead of pouring blocks on site and then moving them just like you move the chiseled blocks.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:The pyramids were poured like concrete by blindseer · · Score: 1

      If you can make poured blocks, it would make much more sense to simply use pouring to make big structures instead of pouring blocks on site and then moving them just like you move the chiseled blocks.

      The blocks where not moved once poured, they were poured in place. The theory is that many of the blocks were quarried and moved to the site. When carrying the large blocks became difficult, or they wanted a smooth surface to work with, they would pour the blocks in place. Sometimes the blocks poured in place would have to be trimmed to allow for the placement of carved blocks, and that would mean chiseling into the poured block.

      You don't need an analysis to see if a stone us poured.
      You see that with blank eye.

      You are correct, the evidence of poured blocks can be plainly seen. I was mistaken before on the need to crack open blocks to see this, there are already damaged blocks showing evidence of being poured in place.

      It is extremely unlikely that the Egyptians used poured blocks. If they had: we had literature about it. Like we have about basically everything covering their lives.
      And we probably had ruins of stuff that *obviously* used pouring techniques.

      We do have literature about it. There's also a lot of literature on the use of carved blocks. Building these pyramids took decades and it is not inconceivable that the building techniques changed over that time, so early documentation may not have this technique because they didn't use it then. There is an obvious line in the blocks where the construction quality improved. This is where they shifted from only carved blocks to a combination of carved blocks moved to the site and blocks poured in place. The poured blocks can be seen in between carved blocks, where they fit so tightly that they could not be made any other way.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:The pyramids were poured like concrete by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it is extremely obvious that they never used any pouring techniques.
      A) no literature
      B) no poured building parts of ordinary architecture (temples, walls)
      C) no poured blocks, or what ever, in the pyramids

      If you can prove otherwise, I'm sure you get a Nobel Prize.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re: The pyramids were poured like concrete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Much more likely is that these pyramids were made with a limestone slurry poured into wooden forms built in place."

      This is incorrect.

  25. No shit by DrXym · · Score: 2

    This "great mystery" hasn't been such for a long time. Quarries carved rocks to make blocks, the blocks were moved onto barges and then the barges were sailed to places where they were required. Evidence for canals was established long before now. The only mystery is why anybody has such trouble understanding that ancient peoples weren't idiots.

    1. Re:No shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "great mystery" hasn't been such for a long time. Quarries carved rocks to make blocks, the blocks were moved onto barges and then the barges were sailed to places where they were required. Evidence for canals was established long before now. The only mystery is why anybody has such trouble understanding that ancient peoples weren't idiots.

      No, you're wrong. There has been evidence that the pyramids at Giza used stone from near Luxor, and that massive numbers of slaves were used, but little to prove the blocks were moved via barges and canals. It always made sense but little to no evidence actually supported these theories. A more perplexing mystery is why we continue to bother answering half-assed garbage posts by the likes of you. The world may never know.

    2. Re:No shit by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      "A more perplexing mystery is why we continue to bother answering half-assed garbage posts by the likes of you. The world may never know."
      QFT

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    3. Re:No shit by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      That they built the pyramids proves that if they weren't idiots, they were deluded. What a waste of human effort.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:No shit by DrXym · · Score: 2
      There is archeological evidence of canals from quarries in Aswan that has been known about for years. And canals and docks near Giza that granite blocks arrived. In fact virtually every limestone, sandstone and granite quarry in Egypt was situated close to the Nile for obvious reasons. Also obvious would be their desire to minimize the effort required to transport blocks which would involve bringing water closer to the quarry via canals where practicable. If you had bothered to do even a brief search before hammering out your response you might even learn that.

      So no "great mystery" has been solved here. Just some TV show hyping up some recent evidence that merely confirms and adds detail to what was already known.

    5. Re:No shit by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The only mystery is why anybody has such trouble understanding that ancient peoples weren't idiots.

      You don't need to be an idiot to not understand something and to leave future people questioning if you were able to come up with the idea at all. There is a fundamental disconnect between building something and understanding something. Therefore we are able to only rely on physical records or evidence that people actually did something.

      E.g. given a complete absence of any records before Christ, what would be your basis for belief that Egyptians could build barges? Archimedes didn't describe the principles about how flotation worked until the 3rd century. If you didn't have evidence that they were building and using boats over 2000 years earlier, what would be your basis for that belief? Or flip the argument around, do you believe the Egyptians knew the world was round and circled around the sun?

      People are only as intelligent as the records show they were. Nothing more, nothing less.

    6. Re:No shit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It is an excellent way to have the government spent its money and have basically zero unemployment.

      And unlike you, 5 years ago, hey had universal health care in Egypt 5000 years ago.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:No shit by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      People are^H^H^H seem only as intelligent as the records show they were. Nothing more, nothing less.

      We know like forever than the ancient world had barges, so not really sure at what you are aiming.
      How would the copper from Cypern/Cyprus reach Egypt if they had no sea going vessels?

      And yes, most likely the Egyptians knew the earth is round. After all they traveled over sea on the east side of Africa down to Somalia and beyond. (The south tip of Somalia is beyond the Equator)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:No shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true, if we don't have understanding of something then it doesn't affect us. Just ask Isaac Newton. It was such a pain in his time dealing with all those floating apples.

    9. Re:No shit by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Complete absence of records before Christ? Oh dear oh dear.

      The Rosetta stone, Armarna letters, THOUSANDS of hieroglyphic texts on tombs, inscriptions on monuments and steles. Plus written descriptions of ships, depictions of boats in paintings, model boats in funerary goods, actual boats like the Khufu boat. Even evidence of shipyards, canals and docks. Boats were important to the Egyptians for obvious reasons.

      Aside from that, the stone quarries themselves all lie next to the Nile, again for obvious reasons - the blocks were transported by river. The Aswan quarry isn't even on the same side of the Nile as Giza. So even if they dragged those blocks 500 damned miles they'd still have to be ferried from one bank to the other. And at that point why not use the natural conveyor belt they happened to be next to in the first place? And besides ALL THAT. We even have the likes of Herodotus explaining how Egyptians moved large obelisks, which are far larger than standard blocks were transported by water.

      So sorry there isn't much doubt about what Egyptians were capable of or what they obviously did.

      It's hard to even fathom why you reference Archimedes except as some non sequitur. One doesn't need to know how boats float to know that they do float. Egyptians built lots of boats and had thousands of years of practical experience building them and navigating them on the Nile and around the Mediterranean / Red Sea. They figured a lot out through trial, error and practical experience.

  26. But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just watch out when the impatient/overworked/stressed out alien parents show up to pick after their kids.

    Its not gonna be pretty.

    1. Re:But by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Just watch out when the impatient/overworked/stressed out alien parents show up to pick after their kids.

      Its not gonna be pretty.

      Yeah, we bitch about stepping on those damned legos all laying about. Wait 'til someone steps on a pyramid! It's all fun 'til someone gets hurt!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  27. How convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the primary witness has been dead for 4000 years.

  28. Can yo even get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...enough Jews in Egypt to do that?

  29. Many archaeologists are in da Nile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone had to say it.

  30. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Said the Russian troll trying to incite more divisiveness.

    Hey mistah dubya, yer term's been up and done for a goodly bit now.

  31. None of that explains the large cut stones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Egypt, there are still large obelisks, and large carved stones, including granite!

    Your solution doesn't explain those.

    1. Re:None of that explains the large cut stones by blindseer · · Score: 2

      In Egypt, there are still large obelisks, and large carved stones, including granite!

      Your solution doesn't explain those.

      My explanation does not have to. I'm not trying to explain the construction technique of every stone structure from ancient Egypt, only how some of the large stones came to be in the pyramids. Even the people that believe in the use of poured lime slurry blocks will agree that some of the stones were quarried far away and brought in with boats, sledges, and muscle. Perhaps they used the large stones as the forms, not wood. There was not a lot of wood in ancient Egypt.

      Carving granite was done in ancient Egypt, I don't recall anyone disputing this. Those that do will likely think of fantastic explanations of aliens bringing them forges capable of forming granite into shapes. Then they'll explain how all of this technology was lost without a trace. It doesn't take aliens from a distant planet to explain these things, just more imagination and some understanding of physics, chemistry, and engineering.

      People like to point to the 10 ton blocks of granite in the pyramids to "prove" that they had access to heavy machinery. I remember in high school the track team picking up the coach's truck (admittedly a small truck) and putting it sideways in its parking spot as a joke. That's 2 or 3 tons lifted by a bunch of teenagers on a whim. Get a much larger group of motivated adults, and with planning, they'll move 10 ton blocks great distances and to great heights. They'll do this with tools made of bronze and wood too.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:None of that explains the large cut stones by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      A small pickup is in the ton and a half range. But, point taken.

      In the past I think a lot of the guessing was by scientists that were not engineers.

      And then there was Erich von Däniken. Great fun for pubescent minds.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  32. Ancient Aliens is in trouble now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yah, those nut jobs in Ancient Aliens are gonna have a cow now.

  33. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they most likely weren't "black." It's a rather taboo subject.

  34. Cast in place? by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Personally, I think the most obvious theory is likely to be the closest to the correct explanation: that the blocks WEREN'T quarried, but are some form of manmade cast stone made from ancient concrete.

    If they were cast instead of directly quarried, the builders could have just built the whole thing like a modern freeway embankment... build the perimeter, backfill the inside with sifted & graded crushed rock & sand. Maybe put down an occasional layer of cloth to stabilize it horizontally (knowing the cloth will eventually decay, but only really NEEDING it for stabilization during construction). Cast the next row of stones, move them horizontally into place, and backfill the interior up to the next level. Stir, rinse, and repeat until you're done. Modern retained-earth construction obviously goes quite a bit further, (like using steel cables to pull the retaining walls inward so they can be vertical instead of sloped, and using precast wall segments instead of casting them on-site), but the basic idea is the same.

    Moving big, heavy things HORIZONTALLY is fairly straightforward. So is moving crushed-rock cementious slurry up a hill in small buckets. If they're cast stone, the pyramids' construction basically just becomes a matter of having lots of money, immense HR management resources, and good supply-chain management.

    From what I've read, Egypt's antiquities ministry is part of the reason why relatively little is known about the "nuts and bolts" construction details of the pyramids. It WANTS to preserve the aura of mystery, because the official narrative drives tourism and brings enormous amounts of money into Egypt. From their point of view, the absolute WORST thing that could happen is if someone were to demonstrate that the pyramids were no more special than a random freeway embankment.

    1. Re:Cast in place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were cast, why the retangular shapes? Why not just build forms and cast the whole thing?

    2. Re:Cast in place? by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except it is known the blocks used are quarried limestone and granite, not concrete.

    3. Re:Cast in place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well if you, the great Miamicanes, think they were cast on-site as a kind of concrete, that's obviously the most plausible explanation. Never mind all these "experts" with their "evidence".

    4. Re:Cast in place? by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      > Except it is known the blocks used are quarried limestone and granite, not concrete.

      No, they've always been ASSUMED to have been quarried limestone and granite. About 10 years ago, someone analyzed a chunk of "stone" from one of the pyramids & discovered the same kind of bubbles you'd find in manmade cast stone.

      http://www.materials.drexel.ed...

      The conclusion of the above: the pyramids are a combination of cast and quarried stone... basically the lower stones were quarried, and the upper stones were cast... basically, they used quarried stone up to the point where it became more difficult/expensive to transport and lift the blocks into place, and used cast stone for the rest (because cast stone would have been too expensive to use for everything, so they only used it where they HAD to).

    5. Re:Cast in place? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I think you're presuming technology neither known nor suspected to be in existence at the time the pyramids were built. Where's the (chemical) evidence that the stones aren't natural?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:Cast in place? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      You're confused, that's a paper on the "casing", the mostly removed covering that made them pretty and white and smooth at one time but no longer. What we see today is the core, which is quarried rock. Your paper is NOT about "how the pyramids were built" but only on how they were made pretty.

    7. Re:Cast in place? by Ramze · · Score: 5, Informative

      The granite is absolutely quarried. No one denies this. The limestone is debatable, but it matches what's found in a quarry in its consistency. The theory you mention is interesting, but it was mostly dismissed a decade ago.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The biggest problem with the theory is... it's limestone. Limestone is a sedimentary rock made from fossilized sea creatures, and it's loaded full of fossils. Pulverizing limestone to make a mixture to re-form into stone would destroy most of those fossils. The pyramids blocks are full of such fossils -- most tiny and in clusters, but some are quite large. That's why no one takes this limestone concrete theory seriously. It'd be impossible to have so many completely intact fossils -- some larger than an average sized hand -- embedded in the "concrete."

      While it's possible they had the technology to do it and maybe even used it in some areas, the evidence strongly suggests that at least most of the blocks were cut and hauled... just like the heavy granite stones.

    8. Re:Cast in place? by leretard · · Score: 1

      how the heck was this comment modded up?

      slashdot is getting dumber and dumber and dumber

      as everyone else has already said, the most cursory knowledge of geology refutes this idea

    9. Re:Cast in place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slashdot is getting dumber and dumber and dumber

      The world, and most especially America, is getting dumber and dumber.

      Who needs facts when truthyness will suffice? In a world where POTUS lies every time he opens his mouth, why not idiotic theories which are trivially disproven?

      Welcome to the world of "alternative facts".

    10. Re:Cast in place? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, Egypt's antiquities ministry is part of the reason why relatively little is known about the "nuts and bolts" construction details of the pyramids. It WANTS to preserve the aura of mystery, because the official narrative drives tourism and brings enormous amounts of money into Egypt. From their point of view, the absolute WORST thing that could happen is if someone were to demonstrate that the pyramids were no more special than a random freeway embankment.

      I really doubt that your hypothesis, but I can think of a few reasons why Egypt's antiquities ministry might be blocking excavations.

      1. In the past, excavation sites have been pilfered.
      2. It takes money to excavate, secure, protect from the elements, display, catalog, and maintain artifacts.
      3. Most of the archeologists are foreigners. And when foreigners write your history, their narratives can be quite unflattering and even racist.
      4. The sites and artifacts could have been built by multiple civilizations, or multiple tribes, at different times. Admitting such things can be dangerous to a nation, because a neighboring country could claim to be descendants of that different civilization/tribe and lay claim to a piece of their land.
      5. Technology for archeology is still improving. When we look at archeologists of the past, we often see the damage their excavations created as criminal.
      6. If something is excavated and put into Egyptian museums, it risks being stolen, but it also risks being destroyed by Islamist fanatics.

    11. Re:Cast in place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hard to make that argument, when tourism is dead in the country.

    12. Re:Cast in place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case recent events haven’t driving it home yet - large groups of people can’t keep secrets. Eventually the special snowflakes emerge for their brief moment in the sun.

      Don’t be conspiracy guy. No one likes that guy.

    13. Re:Cast in place? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      that the blocks WEREN'T quarried, but are some form of manmade cast stone made from ancient concrete.
      Which would be obvious for even a layman like me by just looking at a stone.
      We know for certain from where the stones were quarried, that os easy to analyze.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Cast in place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Holy crap. Are you kidding?

      You clearly have no experience in masonry or engineering.

      First, it is very easy to tell the difference between concrete and solid rock. There is no question -- except maybe among the flat-earth crowd -- that the pyramids were built from stone.

      Second, pyramids aren't retaining walls. You cannot construct them using the same techniques. A pyramid built the way you describe would not be structurally sound. The thing wouldn't have lasted four years, let alone 4,000.

      Maybe you should just leave the theorizing up to people who actually know something about the subject matter?

    15. Re:Cast in place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia isn't a valid source. Drexel.edu is much better.

      Limestone is a sedimentary rock made from fossilized sea creatures, and it's loaded full of fossils. Pulverizing limestone to make a mixture to re-form into stone would destroy most of those fossils. The pyramids blocks are full of such fossils -- most tiny and in clusters, but some are quite large. That's why no one takes this limestone concrete theory seriously. It'd be impossible to have so many completely intact fossils -- some larger than an average sized hand -- embedded in the "concrete."

      Aggregate. Most forms of concrete have aggregate. And since this was all done by hand, pulverizing would be pointless. Simply pound big stones into small stones (which will have the fossils in question), bake some of them to create lime, move it all in baskets just like civilizations did for millennia, add water, and voila! You have limestone concrete with limestone aggregate that contains fossils. Not just possible, but obviously the easiest solution when thinking of the problem in context.

      the evidence strongly suggests that at least most of the blocks were cut and hauled

      The evidence suggests that the stones would look nearly identical except for bubbles, which is what the evidence shows. People have assumed the correct course and have rejected all others without any experimentation. Perhaps some enterprising experimental archeologist grad student will create their thesis because the well-established have an invested interest in denying anything not found in the textbooks they teach from.

    16. Re:Cast in place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The evidence suggests that the stones would look nearly identical except for bubbles, which is what the evidence shows.

      Says you. Your drexel.edu "evidence" talks about the *cover* stones, meaning the decorative outer layer (to remove the staircase effect of the cubical blocks).
      The majority of the blocks were quarried. If you think aggregate concrete looks anywhere similar to a solid piece of limestone, you may want to go look at actual rocks.

    17. Re:Cast in place? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      I live in Florida. My house sits on several feet of crushed limestone, with quite a few underground globs of waste cement (presumably whatever the construction workers dumped at the end of the day whenever they were doing concrete work). I dug up a bunch of the limestone boulders and concrete globs earlier this year while redoing my front yard's landscaping. After ~35 years underground, exposed to groundwater, plant roots, and everything else, the two can be pretty damn hard to tell apart... they've both been eroded by water, and many of the concrete globs have limestone with visible fossils embedded in them (presumably because the concrete was dumped onto a pile of rocks). In most cases, it's not at all obvious where the "real" rock ends and the hardened concrete glob begins.

      It's also noteworthy that the researchers pointed out that the concrete they believe the ancient Egyptians made would NOT have been like modern concrete -- it would have looked more like "natural" stone, because it would have contained much larger chunks of natural stone than modern concrete aggregate.

      As for lasting 4,000 years, remember... it would have been more like Roman concrete than modern portland cement-based concrete. Modern reinforced concrete depends upon embedded steel for tensile strength. The steel rusts, and the concrete eventually comes crashing down because it can't support its own weight without it. The Romans used concrete the same way they used cut stone (arches, vaults, etc). If the Romans had built hundred-foot spans of steel-reinforced concrete, they would have probably fallen apart long before the empire itself did.

      At the moment, both possibilities are still very much topics ripe for further research. Pretty much everyone agrees that at least some of the blocks were quarried, and there seems to be pretty good evidence that at least some of the blocks were cast on site.

      Is the theory a bit of a reach? Sure. So would have been telling a group of paleontologists in the 1950s that birds aren't distant just DESCENDANTS of dinosaurs... birds ARE dinosaurs. And T-rex had feathers.

    18. Re:Cast in place? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I live in Florida.

      Well, that explains a lot.

  35. Re:Fake News by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Bozhe moy, you managed to pivot an article on ancient pyramids to arguments about the NFL! Well-played, comrade.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  36. You're missing the whole point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point is that indeed there must have been some pretty sophisticated tools at work, well beyond what is attributed the ancient peoples.

    The mystery is NOT whether ancient peoples moved large blocks, but rather HOW they did so without sophisticated setups that they weren't supposed to have known about.

    Even stranger is the fact that the oldest structures (some perhaps much older than has been attributed) seem to be the grandest and most perplexing.

    The mystery is: What kinds of technology did the ancients actually have, and why did they seem to lose their knowledge of these things.

    1. Re:You're missing the whole point by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 2

      The point is that indeed there must have been some pretty sophisticated tools at work, well beyond what is attributed the ancient peoples.

      The mystery is NOT whether ancient peoples moved large blocks, but rather HOW they did so without sophisticated setups that they weren't supposed to have known about.

      Even stranger is the fact that the oldest structures (some perhaps much older than has been attributed) seem to be the grandest and most perplexing.

      The mystery is: What kinds of technology did the ancients actually have, and why did they seem to lose their knowledge of these things.

      The thing about ancient civilizations is that their collapse buried technology/knowledge that then get discovered again centuries or millennia later. Writing was discovered, lost, rediscovered... probably a few times. Most likely because reading and writing wasn't wide-spread in the society, but only in a specific class. If our civilization was to collapse tomorrow, I'm relatively confident that it wouldn't regress too much as literacy is more widespread in our civilization than in any before and we still have repositories of knowledge in printed form. The same thing happened with steam power (between Hero of Alexandria and 1606's Spain), mechanical computing devices (between the Antikythera device and the Pascaline in 1642) and even some simpler/humbler tools.

      I'm going to use the woodworking hand-plane as an example... it's a simple family of tools that quickly adjust the size, flatten, shape or finish the surface of wood. A properly setup smoothing plane can adjust the dimensions by increments of a thousandth of an inch, scrub planes can take off chunks of an eighth of an inch. The hand plane is believed to have originated in ancient Egypt as a jig to hold either an adze blade or a chisel at a constant angle to the piece being worked. During medieval times, and up to the mid 19th century, they were a block of wood with a channel carved through it to hold the plane blade in the correct position (secured with a wedge). In the 19th century, 3 new designs of the tool were invented: metal-bodied planes, transitional planes (wood sole, metal holding/adjustment) and infill planes (wooden body, clad in metal). However, digs in Pompeii and other big Roman sites have brought up both metal-bodied and infill planes from the Roman era. So it's another relatively simple tech that was lost and rediscovered.

      The only non-trivial change in woodworking tools between the Egyptians and now is that we have motorized most of the tools in order to speed up the process. If you remove the power tools from the equation, we're not even at the peak of the tool design. The peak in design happened between the 17th and the 19th centuries, and modern non-power tools are either copies of those designs (with better materials) or functionally inferior to those designs.

  37. Egypt had no slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Especially important is the fact that Egypt did not use slaves for construction.

    1. Re: Egypt had no slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep trying that line. You're not quite there yet.

  38. Re:Fake News by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

    But they were (and still are, if they come over here) "African Americans"

  39. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So did jews

  40. next headline in a few years time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And at some point in the future it could well be revealed that this papyrus that was magically found, was produced by a dubious artifacts dealer, for a good profit. Most "artifacts" since the 1950's are fruit a very lucrative trade. The work of these forgers is so good that even the best experts are sometimes fooled, often for decades.

  41. Pyramids = Monument to slavery and oppression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldnt be marveled. Monuments to death and slavery.

  42. Seriously? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I learned that almost five decades ago.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That movie is from 1968? That's older than the pyramids themselves!

  43. Re:Fake News by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1, Informative

    You think Trump is a dangerous lunatic,

    Yes.

    in contrast to Obama,

    Yes.

    a sympathizer of Islam and communism.

    No.

    --

    Stephan

  44. Re:Fake News by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Whatever race they were, they were using slaves. We should hate the Egyptians solely because they used slavery.

    Well, Yul Brunner notwithstanding, the currently accepted theory is that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but by paid labourers.

    --

    Stephan

  45. Re:Fake News by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually there is DNA evidence that the original founders of Egypt were Indo-European.

    Since Indo-European is a language, part of a cultural complex that spread over many different populations, I find that hard to believe. Do you have any reliable sources? Of course there is European DNA in Egypt - it was very much part of the Greek and Roman worlds. However, I'm not aware of any linguistic evidence for PIE ever playing a role in Egypt before Alexander's conquest.

    --

    Stephan

  46. Re:Fake News by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Informative

    Islam is not a threat. Extremist Islam is a threat, it's not the same thing. Extremist Christianity is a threat as well, like any extremist sect or ideology.

    I have not seen Obama being a communist sympathizer, though that's a phrase seldom heard these days, invented by the anti-commie extremist of Joe McCarthy who I thought was still dead.

    As for Trump, he's automatically dangerous because he's the president and is far more dangerous than any other single person in the US. He's also showing plenty of signs of being a lunatic; an out of control ego, and sees hallucinations of things that aren't there. Now putting his own personal foibles ahead of the good of the country isn't necessarily a sign of madness, it is more evidence of being dangerous. So, dangerous lunatic is not necessarily an incorrect description.

  47. That can only prove it's impossible. But .. by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You've heard the expression "in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

    Theoretical calculation can show why something is IMPOSSIBLE. It cannot show that there is no unforeseen, insurmountable impediment. Only actually doing it can prove that there is not anything that makes it impossible to actually do.

    Having said that, accomplishing each part, separately, is strong evidence that the entire process can be done. If people build appropriately sized canals in similar geography using only tools and technologies available to the ancient Egyptians, and they can (separately) build appropriate barges, and another group can move the blocks to where the barges would have been, it's reasonable to think they probably could have combined each of these steps.

  48. Re:Fake News by Scarletdown · · Score: 4, Informative

    There has been no historical or archeological evidence found that the Egyptians ever enslaved the Jews.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  49. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another person not paying attention. I wish people studied history more.

  50. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Are you saying blacks fuck a lot and have no Jobs so they multiply faster than a plague

  51. intellectually brilliant by mcswell · · Score: 1

    Dr. Daniel Jackson isn't posting here any more.

    1. Re:intellectually brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but Samatha Carter still is.

  52. 5000 year old fake news by bothorsen · · Score: 0

    We all know they were built by aliens. Don't screw up a good story with facts.

  53. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were you born that stupid or is it an acquired trait?

  54. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thatâ(TM)s by looking at the DNA of 3 people. Look at the art in the pyramids if you want to see what the Egyptians looked like.

  55. Re:Fake News by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    So you're not disputing the dangerous lunatic part?

  56. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way I've heard it it was the USians not the Germanic people. And we're not talking about pyramids but about oil. And we're not talking about building but about stealing.
    All the rest is about right.

  57. Obelisks by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    I remember from about 15 years ago a documentary on putting up obelisks in which a number of archaeologists tried to do it as a practical demonstration. They tried elaborate schemes with sand running out of boxes and so on. The foreman of the team of hired help that constructed these things begged to be allowed to try his own method, and on the last day he was allowed to try. He built an A frame and a few other bits and with his team of men it took them half an hour once that was constructed. It shows the value of practical experience. So in this case it would be good to get some engineers skilled in hydrology, construction, shipping, etc., with good practical experience to look over the evidence in the diary and see if they could come up with a suitable way of implementing what it hints at (I imagine given the expense you'd have to simulate it in silico, though) to see if it makes sense. That sounds like it would be a really fun research project.

    1. Re:Obelisks by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Did they make the A frame too narrow the first time, but got it right the second? I think I saw that one. It sticks because I thought "that A frame looks too narrow!"

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  58. Re:Fake News by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    They must have had help from white people.

    It's a good thing, then, that Egyptians themselves are significantly Europoid, right?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  59. Re:Fake News by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

    That's technically not exclusive with having (some amount of) slaves. I mean, if your intention is to extract some corvée labour from your freemen, having or not having slaves is immaterial. They're already working for you.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  60. Re:Fake News by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    Actually there is DNA evidence that the original founders of Egypt were Indo-European.

    Since Indo-European is a language, part of a cultural complex that spread over many different populations, I find that hard to believe. D

    The term Egypt is complex, as there were multiple kingdoms in both time and geography. That's not surprising as we are talking of a period of thousands of years, and the borders of European countries have been fluid over even the last 200, let alone the classic pharonic period of over time times that.

  61. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is the Torah of so little historic value to you? You sound like an anti-semite.

  62. Thanks for the reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a very nice insight.

  63. Re:Fake News by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Of course there is European DNA in Egypt - it was very much part of the Greek and Roman worlds.

    Given Cleopatra's relationship to Julius Caesar this statement is true in several ways.

  64. i read a book by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I read they were moved using an alien transportation system powered by the Sun's harmonics. The book had equations and everything.

  65. So long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twice the the time back to the ancient Greek philosophers.
    12 centuries before Moses and Ramses II.
    Heiroglyphs 7 centuries old, but a mong first substantive documents.
    Only a few cuneiform tablets as old as this.

  66. Wrong: The History Channel proof is correct. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ancient Aliens.

  67. alternative theory by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Dunno why my idea never caught on :-) .

    Ask any sculptor, and they'll say "take a block of wood/stone and remove everything that doesn't look like a [final object].

    Clearly the Egyptians set up a gigantic block of stone and then carved away everything that didn't look like a stepped pyramid.

    Waiting for my Nobel Prize..

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  68. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody's saying they should go to jail or have the government stop them.

    Actually, people are. Or more vicious ideas.

  69. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad troll. Would not read again

  70. Are they joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone already knew that the Ancient Egyptians use barges to move the massive stone. They built barges as big as football fields to move obelisks. The mystery is not how they got the stones to the site of the great pyramid, it is how they got the stones to the top of the great pyramid.

  71. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The opposite is true. Egyptian colonies and trade depots form the nucleus of European Civilization.

  72. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The protest is about black people never being satisfied, even though the USA gives them the most handouts and better quality of life than any other country.

  73. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not extreme though, it's normal Islam. Their religion literally says to kill non-believers.

  74. Re:Fake News by stoatwblr · · Score: 2

    Aside from the off-color humor, Cleopatra was greek (ptolomy dynasty) and lived closer to our time than the time when those pyramids were built - they were already 3000 years old when she was alive, 2000 years ago.

    Yes, the pyramids really are that old.

    Yes Egypt has been invaded by many groups.

    No, we don't know much about the ethnicity or culture of the time when they were built.

    Yes, Subsaharan Africa had some extremely advanced cultures and kingdoms - and did so right up to about the 15th century when the Portuguese systematically flattened just about every coastal city they could locate.

  75. Re: Fake News by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    Trump acting to silence them is, imo, crossing the line. The constitution protects us from the government. This wouldn't be a big issue out trump didn't fan the flames

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  76. I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First. Where are the remains of the "man made canals" ?
    Second. They wouldn't even be able to build anything. They found the pyramids there. They tried to reproduce and failed.

  77. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the Bible says not to have pre marital sex, people don't follow it.

    Religion says a lot of things.

  78. Re: Wheat storage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL nice to know that Ben Carson is a high ranking government official. I always thought he was a doctor. What a sneaky fuck.

  79. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So all religions are equal for you? You seem like a cultural relativism.

    For me, as well as for Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Murray, and many more, Christianity is a better religion because Jesus was a hippie, while Mohammed was a warlord who had a child bribe. Both prophets are seen as the perfect man by their followers.

    Who is a better man for you, Jesus or Mohammed?

    Would following one or the other makes you a better person and if so, which one?

    Also, check this out: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D8tFH5yIvsQ

    Even moderate Muslims admit you are wrong.

  80. Re:Fake News by terjeber · · Score: 2

    Nope, the Jews were never captives in Egypt. That's all myth.

  81. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youâ(TM)re a trolling idiot

  82. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but Christians stopped stoning people in the streets. Islam still does it.

  83. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How has he "acted" to silence them?
    Did he send in the police or army?

    Because I must have missed that.

    Or did he use his words?
    OMG!!

  84. Re:Fake News by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

    Extremist Buddhism is terrifying...

  85. Re: Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How has he "acted" to silence them?

    He gave direct instructions to the NFL owners to fire them. Which is completely illegal. Not just as a constitutional violation (demanding punishment for an exercise of free speech). There are also laws forbidding him from demanding that non-government organizations fire people.

  86. Re:Fake News by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    What BLM wants is basically for the existing laws to be enforced. The perception is that a police officer can kill a black person at will and get off without serious punishment. There have been plenty of highly visible examples, although I don't know how the stats actually work out.

    This is complicated because the lack of enforcement is within the justice system, for the most part. Grand juries did not indict in some egregious cases. Juries tend to find the police not guilty, no matter what the circumstances. BLM wants this to change.

    (This is why I'm not keen on jury nullification. It can really easily turn into a system of oppression for a disfavored group, when crimes against that group go unpunished.)

    In this country, a jury trial is necessary to convict someone of a serious crime, and so this is going to be a matter of changing how juries think. BLM therefore needs publicity, preferably not of the violent kind, and the NFL protest is an excellent way to do it from their point of view. They also need to publicize every Tamir Rice or Philandro Castile case, to get people thinking that the outcomes may be wrong.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  87. Re: Fake News by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    They even get free bullets, courtesy of the local police departments.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  88. Re:Fake News by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    "Slavery" doesn't have a single meaning. Some systems weren't all that harsh, some were horrifying.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  89. Re:Fake News by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Indo-European is a language family, which Egyptian of whatever period doesn't belong to. How do you label DNA as Indo-European?

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  90. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes it is, but in a different way than you mean

  91. Re:Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Tebow took a knee to pray it was outrageous to them. But, by all means, the teams should be allowed to piss on the USA DURING the Natl Anthem. The constant double-standards are getting a bit ridiculous. Lose the cult mentality on both sides, folks.

  92. OH MY GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sans! I, the Great Papyrus, have discovered that the pyramids were built by HUMANS!

  93. That's not the MAIN mystery! by iq145 · · Score: 1

    They answered the easy part about how they moved the bricks horizontally. So how did these cavemen move them vertically to build something that tall?